1:15-cv-00121
D.D.C.Mar 30, 2016Background
- Mack L. Charles, a former CIA Non‑Official Cover (NOC) operations officer, worked at CIA from 1996 until his termination in 2010; he alleges supervisory interference after a relationship with a younger colleague and subsequent retaliatory actions.
- He filed internal EEO complaints: an age discrimination complaint (June 10, 2009) and a retaliation complaint (Sept. 16, 2009) after seeing allegedly false materials.
- A Personal Evaluation Board (PEB) was requested in Aug. 2009, initially declined action in Oct. 2009, reconvened in May 2010 after an allegedly false memorandum, and recommended termination; Charles was fired in Dec. 2010.
- Charles sought EEOC reconsideration, which was denied by letter dated Aug. 28, 2014 that advised he had 90 days to file a civil action; he concedes he filed suit after that 90‑day period.
- Charles alleges equitable tolling/estoppel due to a severe depression and an alleged CIA requirement that counsel sign a new secrecy agreement, but he admits he met with counsel in early November 2014 and ultimately filed pro se on Jan. 23, 2015.
- The government moved to dismiss; the court found all ADEA claims time‑barred and granted the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of suit under EEOC 90‑day rule | Charles says depression and CIA security requirement prevented timely filing; equitable tolling/estoppel apply | Government says Charles missed the 90‑day deadline and alleges no extraordinary circumstances or misconduct that prevented timely filing | Dismissed: missed 90‑day deadline; neither equitable tolling nor estoppel apply |
| Equitable tolling due to mental incapacity | Charles contends a "deep depression" rendered him incapable of timely filing | Government disputes sufficiency of allegations and points to Charles’ November 2014 contact with counsel as evidence of capability | Denied: allegations are conclusory and inconsistent with his actions; not non compos mentis or extraordinarily prevented from filing |
| Equitable estoppel based on CIA-imposed security requirement | Charles alleges CIA required a new secrecy agreement that impeded counsel clearance and delayed filing | Government shows the requirement was routine or implausible and argues Charles could have filed pro se or used other counsel | Denied: plaintiff fails to show defendant took active steps that prevented timely filing; he filed pro se and later obtained counsel without encountering the asserted barrier |
| Proper exhaustion and alternative filing route under ADEA | Charles implies additional hostile‑work‑environment and retaliation claims beyond the administrative claim | Government asserts he exhausted only one retaliation claim; no notice of intent to sue within 180 days for direct‑to‑court ADEA route | All ADEA claims barred: either untimely as within EEOC decision scope or unexhausted/untimely for direct‑to‑court route |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. Department of the Treasury, 500 U.S. 1 (1991) (describing two administrative/federal‑court routes available to federal employees under ADEA)
- Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807 (1980) (endorse strict adherence to statutory procedural requirements)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Currier v. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc., 159 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (equitable estoppel bars timeliness defenses when defendant actively prevents timely suit)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 764 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (garden‑variety neglect does not justify equitable tolling)