Dyson v. District of Columbia
808 F. Supp. 2d 84
D.D.C.2011Background
- Dyson, a DC Fire and Emergency Medical Service EMT, alleges sexual harassment by Lt. James Clem who outranked her and could discipline her.
- Lt. Clem’s conduct began with personal questions and overtime offers, escalating in early 2007 to solicitations and personal calls.
- In March/April 2007, Clem allegedly sent a penis photo and made lewd remarks; he continued contacting Dyson multiple times daily.
- The harassment purportedly ceased around May 2007; Dyson received crank calls thereafter; Clem was laterally transferred and, in August 2008, charged and found guilty by DC FEMS on an unspecified matter.
- Dyson filed discrimination charges with the DC Office of Human Rights on April 16, 2008 and with the EEOC on April 17, 2008; the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on May 28, 2010; Dyson filed suit August 26, 2010.
- The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the Title VII claims as time-barred and dismissed the DCHRA claims without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII claims are timely filed | Dyson contends tolling occurred via EEOC intake. | Clem argues filing within 180/300 days; late under 300-day rule. | Title VII claims time-barred under 300-day rule. |
| Whether §1981a/§1981 claims survive independently | §1981a referenced, not asserted as independent claim. | §1981a does not create independent Title VII claim. | No independent §1981a/§1981 claim to dismiss. |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over DCHRA claims | N/A | N/A | Declined supplemental jurisdiction; DCHRA claims dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (used to determine lending of inferences for limitations period)
- Bailey v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2008) (dismissal for failure to timely file EEOC charge)
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (intake questionnaire not equivalent to EEOC charge)
- Hodges v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 990 F.2d 1030 (8th Cir. 1992) (unsworn intake not valid charge)
- Musgrove v. District of Columbia, 775 F. Supp. 2d 158 (D.D.C. 2011) (timeliness; right-to-sue letters do not toll filing period)
- Rogan v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 2d 777 (W.D. Pa. 2000) (consideration of attached documents in motion to dismiss)
- Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D.D.C. 2002) (procedural scope for Rule 12(b)(6) and evidence considered)