Dyson v. District of Columbia
404 U.S. App. D.C. 228
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Dyson, a former EMT for DCFEMS, alleged sexual harassment by Lt. Clem in 2007 under Title VII and related DCHR Act claims.
- Dyson filed an intake questionnaire with the EEOC on December 17, 2007; a draft Charge was mailed March 17, 2008 and the signed Charge was filed April 17, 2008.
- The District Court held Dyson’s Title VII claim untimely, applying a 300-day/180-day statute of limitations and noting the late filing of the Charge.
- Dyson moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), arguing equitable tolling due to EEOC processing time; the District Court rejected this theory.
- The District Court concluded no independent 1981a claim remained for dismissal and denied supplemental jurisdiction over the DC Human Rights Act claim.
- On appeal, Dyson challenged the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion and the district court’s equitable tolling ruling; the court reviews de novo because the merits were addressed on reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dyson is entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline | Dyson contends EEOC processing time tolls the deadline. | District of Columbia argues no tolling due to lack of diligence and no extraordinary circumstances. | No equitable tolling; timely filing not proven. |
| Whether the new theory of tolling raised in Rule 59(e) is reviewable on appeal | Dyson’s new tolling theory should be considered on the merits. | City contends the new theory was untimely for appeal. | Review permitted; theory reviewed de novo. |
| Standard of review for the district court's denial of a Rule 59(e) motion | Not applicable beyond standard review. | Abuse of discretion review unless merits addressed. | De novo review applied for merits when district court addressed the theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1982) (equitable tolling available when timely filing is not jurisdictional)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (extraordinary circumstances required for tolling the statute of limitations)
- Felter v. Kempthorne, 473 F.3d 1255 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (tolling claims must meet strict diligence and circumstance standards)
- Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (notice and knowledge of deadlines affect tolling determinations)
- Connors v. Hallmark & Son Coal Co., 935 F.2d 336 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ( Rule 59(e) arguments considered on merits if district court addressed them)
- Patton Boggs LLP v. Chevron Corp., 683 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (appellate review of district court's Rule 59(e) rulings may be de novo)
- Carter v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 503 F.3d 143 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (noting appellate timing issues for new arguments raised on reconsideration)