Dahlman v. American Ass'n of Retired Persons (AARP)
791 F. Supp. 2d 68
D.D.C.2011Background
- Dahlman was hired by AARP as an attorney in 1999 and developed a large, demanding caseload.
- In 2005 Dahlman began a four-month transitional leave and alleges supervisor May harassed her, causing emotional distress.
- Plaintiff alleges PTSD diagnosed November 2005 and requests to work from home, which AARP allegedly refused, leading to temporary disability.
- Plaintiff was terminated allegedly due to disability and faced post-employment interference with personal affairs.
- Plaintiff filed suit November 5, 2009, asserting ADA and FMLA violations and IIED; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion and timeliness.
- Court dismisses all claims, finding no administrative exhaustion and statutes of limitations bar].[1]
- [1] Note: The court explicitly treats exhaustion and timeliness as dispositive and dismisses claims accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA exhaustion and timeliness | Dahlman seeks tolling for PTSD to excuse exhaustion | Exhaustion required; untimely filing | ADA claims time-barred and exhausted improperly |
| Equitable tolling for non compos mentis | PTSD renders non compos mentis, tolling appropriate | Evidence shows plaintiff could function (moved to Canada) | Not non compos mentis; tolling denied and ADA claim dismissed |
| FMLA timeliness | FMLA claim timely under tolling | Filed after 2-year/3-year window | FMLA claim time-barred |
| IIED timeliness | IIED arising from 2005 conduct | Three-year limit elapsed by Oct 2008 | IIED claim time-barred |
| Overall viability | Claims timely with tolling | All time-barred or unexhausted | Dismissed in full]} ,{ |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading requirement)
- Artis v. Bernanke, 630 F.3d 1031 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (exhaustion not jurisdictional; subject to tolling)
- Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (exhaustion defense is an affirmative defense)
- Francis v. City of New York, 235 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2000) ( Title VII procedural requirements preconditions to suit)
- Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (non compos mentis tolling standard; strict)
- Rendall-Speranza v. Nassim, 107 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (three-year IIED limitations)
- Khan v. Parsons Global Servs., 521 F.3d 421 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (IIED elements in DC)