Bartlett v. Department of the Treasury
749 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Bartlett, a long-time IRS employee, alleged constructive discharge due to disability under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA.
- The IRS moved to dismiss because Bartlett did not contact an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the discriminatory action.
- Bartlett argued equitable tolling due to lack of awareness of the deadline and her mental illness.
- The district court granted the IRS’s motion to dismiss; Bartlett timely appealed.
- The court discussed whether federal employees must exhaust administrative remedies under the Rehabilitation Act and the role of equitable tolling.
- The court affirmed, concluding Bartlett did not prove entitlement to equitable tolling and thus upheld dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion requirement for Rehabilitation Act claims | Bartlett argues exhaustion may be avoided or is not required for §791 claims. | IRS contends strict exhaustion applies and is a prerequisite to suit. | Exhaustion issue treated as open; Bartlett forfeited argument by not raising it below; affirmed dismissal on tolling grounds. |
| Equitable tolling of the 45-day deadline | Bartlett contends mental illness and lack of notice warrant tolling. | IRS contends Bartlett did not show the required level of incapacity or lack of knowledge. | Bartlett failed to prove mental incapacity severe enough to toll; constructive knowledge barred tolling due to postings. |
| Notice and knowledge of the filing deadline | Bartlett asserts she never was informed of the 45-day deadline. | IRS argues notices were posted; Bartlett had constructive knowledge. | Constructive knowledge established; no tolling based on lack of notice. |
| Scope of tolling standards post Lopez and Mélendez-Arroyo | Argues a relaxed standard for mental illness tolling should apply. | Standard remains stringent; requires incapacity to engage rationally; illness must be markedly disabling. | Court applies Mélendez-Arroyo and Lopez standard; Bartlett did not meet threshold for tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 861 F.2d 746 (1st Cir. 1988) (heavy burden for equitable tolling; knowledge of rights matters)
- Mélendez-Arroyo v. Cutler-Hammer de P.R. Co., 273 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2001) (mental illness tolling requires inability to engage in rational thought)
- Nunnally v. MacCausland, 996 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993) (mental incapacity tolling standard for equitable tolling)
- Lopez v. Citibank, 808 F.2d 905 (1st Cir. 1987) (mental disability tolling with counsel involvement; narrow view)
- Mercado v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel, Spa & Casino, 410 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2005) (notice issues when postings disputed; threshold threshold for avoiding dismissal)
- Leary v. Dalton, 58 F.3d 748 (1st Cir. 1995) (exhaustion mandatory where applicable to § 501/504 claims)