Bland v. Fairfax County, Va.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70206
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Bland, a female Fairfax County firefighter, alleges sexual harassment by a male supervisor under Title VII.
- Plaintiff sues Fairfax County in the Eastern District of Virginia; jury trial began May 23, 2011.
- County moves mid-trial to dismiss as time-barred, arguing Bland filed untimely EEOC charge for events after 300 days.
- Bland filed an EEOC charge on December 18, 2008; last discriminatory incident alleged November 25, 2007.
- County contends the 300-day window expired by September 20, 2008, requiring dismissal.
- Court analyzes waiver of the time-bar defense and alternative basis to deny the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the time-bar defense waived? | Waived because not raised promptly; raised after plaintiff rested. | Not waived; timely defense despite procedural posture. | Waived; time-bar defense denied on waiver grounds. |
| Can the intake questionnaire be deemed a charge under Holowecki so the 300-day period applies? | Intake form constitutes a charge under Holowecki. | Intake form is unsworn and not a charge under Holowecki. | Intake questionnaire deemed a charge; timely under 300-day window. |
| Is the complaint timely under Title VII if the intake constitutes a charge? | Holowecki timeline renders charges timely. | Holds the charge untimely if not properly sworn; relies on timing. | Plaintiff's intake deemed timely; suit not time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court, 1982) (EEOC charge timing is not jurisdictional; waivable.)
- Holowecki v. Federal Express Corp., 552 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 2008) (Intake questionnaire can be deemed a charge if it requests agency action.)
- Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106 (Supreme Court, 2002) (Later verified charge relates back to initial filing; sworn status debated.)
- Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009) (Failure to exhaust administrative remedies generally deprives court of jurisdiction.)
- Peterson v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 759 F.2d 1161 (4th Cir. 1985) (Waiver of limitations requires prompt assertion unless prejudice or unfair surprise.)
- Pierce v. County of Oakland, 652 F.2d 671 (6th Cir. 1981) (Distinguishes timing defenses raised late from earlier motions.)