BUTRON v. RAIMONDO
1:24-cv-02735
| D.D.C. | Aug 1, 2025Background
- Stephanie Butron, a former USPTO Patent Examiner, resigned after alleging workplace pressure, mistreatment during a security clearance process, and denial of support for mental health concerns during telework between December 2021 and March 2022.
- Butron claims her resignation on March 9, 2022, was the result of a hostile work environment and constructive discharge.
- She first contacted an EEO counselor about these issues on January 31, 2023—over 300 days after her resignation—and filed a formal EEO complaint in February 2023, which was dismissed as untimely for failing to meet the 45-day deadline.
- The EEOC affirmed dismissal, rejecting Butron's claim that her incapacitation excused the timing, and notified her of the right to file suit within 90 days of the final agency decision (received March 25, 2024).
- Butron filed her civil complaint under Title VII and the ADEA on September 24, 2024—183 days after the EEOC's decision, missing the statutory 90-day window.
- The defendant moved to dismiss on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and untimeliness; the court considered Butron's filings as a pro se litigant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of remedies | Delay excusable due to trauma and incapacity | Complaint untimely; no valid excuse | Butron failed to exhaust; not excused |
| Timeliness of suit | Emotional/financial hardship caused delay; misunderstood requirement | Suit filed after 90 days; statute is strict | Lawsuit untimely; cannot proceed |
| Equitable tolling | Trauma, confusion, and hardship prevent timely filing | No extraordinary circumstances alleged | Tolling not warranted |
| Equitable estoppel | Agency conduct led to legal uncertainty and delay | No agency misconduct or misleading statements | Estoppel not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets Rule 12(b)(6) standard for facial plausibility of claims)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (Title VII deadlines are subject to equitable tolling, not jurisdictional)
- Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling for mental incapacity requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Jackson v. Modly, 949 F.3d 763 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (tolling appropriate only in rare, grossly unjust circumstances)