845 F. Supp. 2d 164
D.D.C.2012Background
- Barbett, 53-year-old contractor at a FERC worksite, employed by LAI for 23 years, terminated May 17, 2010.
- Barbett filed an EEOC discrimination charge on June 22, 2011; EEOC dismissed as untimely.
- Barbett filed this action in the District Court on September 23, 2011.
- LAI moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely under the ADEA administrative-exhaustion requirement.
- Court applies Rule 12(b)(6) standards and may consider attached EEOC materials without converting the motion to summary judgment.
- Court grants LAI’s motion, finding no equitable tolling or estoppel, and notes no compelling grounds for appointing counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barbett timely filed with the EEOC under 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(B). | Barbett argues eligibility despite time lapse; tolling possible. | Charge untimely; outside 300-day window from May 17, 2010. | Charge untimely; suit barred absent tolling/estoppel. |
| Equitable estoppel prevents timely filing due to defendant's misconduct. | LAI impeded timely filing. | No affirmative misconduct by LAI shown. | Estoppel not established. |
| Equitable tolling tolls the limitations period under unusual circumstances. | Mother’s death and other distress hindered filing. | No extraordinary circumstances shown. | No equitable tolling. |
| Whether the court should appoint counsel for a pro se plaintiff. | Requests court-appointed counsel due to financial hardship. | Counsel appointment factors weigh against. | Appointment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 514 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (administrative-exhaustion timing governs ADEA suits)
- Rann v. Chao, 346 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (timeliness and exhaustion interplay; 12(b)(6) vs 12(b)(1))
- Currier v. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc., 159 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling/estoppel considerations in Title VII context)
- Mondy v. Secretary of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (tolling standards in limited, extraordinary circumstances)
- Chung v. Department of Justice, 333 F.3d 273 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (awareness of injury vs cause of injury; tolling considerations)
- Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (mental incapacity as hurdle to tolling)
- Moore v. Chertoff, 424 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2006) (evidence of misconduct required for equitable estoppel)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court 1993) (standard for pleading conclusory claims and notice pleading)
- Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (S. Ct. 2005) (requirement of plausible facts to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (heightened pleading standard; plausibility requirement)