Gill v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 30

Plaintiff Sheila Gill, a former DCPS counselor, was dismissed via a reduction in force at McKinley Technology High School.
Gill alleges retaliation and discrimination based on race and gender under Title VII, and age-based discrimination under the ADEA.
DCPS contends Gill’s Title VII and ADEA claims are time-barred under the 90-day EEOC period.
Gill received the EEOC right-to-sue letter on October 19, 2011, with the period running from October 20, 2011 to January 17, 2012.
Gill filed suit on January 19, 2012, two days after the 90-day deadline, and the court dismisses the claims as time-barred.
The court treats the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a summary judgment motion because outside documents are considered, and grants dismissal on timeliness grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gill’s Title VII and ADEA claims were timely filed.	Gill asserts timely filing under the 90-day rule.	DCPS argues claims were filed after 90 days from Oct. 19, 2011.	Claims time-barred; untimely filing.

Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (1984) (90-day filing period is not jurisdictional; subject to tolling)
Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (strict adherence to 90-day deadline governing Title VII/ADEA claims)
McAlister v. Potter, 733 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D.D.C. 2010) (presumption of delivery date; equitable tolling requirements)
Saltz v. Lehman, 672 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (equitable tolling challenges; burden on plaintiff)
Mondy v. Sec’y of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (tolling only in extraordinary circumstances)
Battle v. Rubin, 121 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2000) (excusable neglect must be more than garden-variety)
Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (strict filing deadlines; not forgiving for delays)
Akridge v. Gallaudet Univ., 729 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D.D.C. 2010) (computing 90-day period; delivery date presumptions)