Cohen v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Civil Action No. 2021-2370
D.D.C.Nov 11, 2021Background:
- Cohen was hired by WMATA in 2008 as a safety officer and suffered a long-term back injury a few years later after a training accident.
- She alleges WMATA denied multiple accommodation requests, subjected her to harassment and supervisory interference, transferred her, moved her office to hazardous conditions, denied a promotion, and ultimately terminated her on June 1, 2020.
- On September 7, 2021, Cohen sued under the Rehabilitation Act asserting four claims: disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and hostile-work-environment harassment.
- WMATA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Cohen’s claims are time-barred because a one-year statute of limitations applies; Cohen argued for a three-year limitations period.
- The court found the D.C. Human Rights Act’s one-year limitations period the most analogous, held Cohen’s claims accrued earlier than one year before filing, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs Rehabilitation Act claims in D.C.? | Cohen: borrow D.C. personal-injury three-year period (or otherwise apply three years) | WMATA: borrow DCHRA one-year discrimination period; claims untimely | Court: borrow DCHRA one-year period; Cohen’s claims are time-barred and dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 826 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (declining to decide which state period governs Rehabilitation Act claims)
- Jaiyeola v. District of Columbia, 40 A.3d 356 (D.C. 2012) (D.C. Court of Appeals held DCHRA’s one-year period applies to Rehabilitation Act claims in D.C. Superior Court)
- N. Star Steel Co. v. Thomas, 515 U.S. 29 (1995) (federal courts borrow the most analogous state limitations period unless inconsistent with federal policy)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate when no amendment could cure a statute-of-limitations defect)
- Wolsky v. Medical College of Hampton Roads, 1 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 1993) (the most analogous state statute need not be identical; minor differences are acceptable)