GANTT v. MABUS, 1:11-cv-01392

Gantt, Black, hired 2003 by NRL as a security guard; his security clearance was revoked due to financial concerns and he was involuntarily transferred in 2005 for lack of clearance.
Gantt was later reconsidered for Top Secret clearance and allegedly received approval in 2006; in 2009 he was offered a position requiring Top Secret clearance that would trigger a promotion.
NRL refused to sponsor his Top Secret clearance, claiming he lied on the background-investigation application; the new job offer and promotion were rescinded.
Gantt alleges discrimination (race) due to NRL's handling of his clearance and promotion, and retaliation for a coworker’s EEOC complaint.
Formal Complaint of Employment Discrimination filed June 22, 2009; Secretary dismissed July 17, 2009 as not reviewable through EEOC for security-clearance determinations; FAD sent to Gantt’s attorney Clarissa Edwards; Gantt received the FAD July 21, 2009; EEOC appeal filed August 20, 2009; EEOC dismissed April 28, 2011 as untimely.
This federal court action followed, with the Secretary moving to dismiss or grant summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the court treated the matter as a summary-judgment proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gantt exhausted administrative remedies	Gantt argues timely EEOC appeal from receipt by attorney.	Gantt was untimely because the appeal deadline ran from receipt by counsel or Gantt, and more than 90 days elapsed.	Gantt’s appeal untimely; exhaustion not satisfied.
Whether Edwards was Gantt's attorney of record for notice purposes	Edwards was not properly designated; receipt should be from Gantt.	Edwards acted as designated representative; formal entry of appearance not required; she received the FAD.	Edwards was Gantt's representative; notice valid.
Whether the faxed FAD constituted proper notice despite legibility	Fax was illegible and should not count as notice.	Fax confirmed receipt; recipient was aware of subject matter; not evidence of failure.	Faxed FAD constituted proper notice; legibility did not defeat notice.
Whether equitable tolling applies to extend the filing period	Diligent efforts to comply warrant tolling.	No extraordinary circumstance; attorney-related neglect; no tolling.	Equitable tolling denied.

Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (exhaustion defenses and timing in administrative remedies)
Hines v. Bair, 594 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2009) (administrative exhaustion requirements for federal-title VII claims)
Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (purpose and timing of EEOC proceedings and appeals)
Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 567 F.2d 429 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (exhaustion requirement and limits on late filings)
Irwin v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (equitable tolling in federal statutory time limits)
Mondy v. Sec’y of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (equitable tolling narrower than general neglect; excusable neglect considerations)