Howard v. Gutierrez
891 F. Supp. 2d 95
D.D.C.2012Background
- Howard and Megginson (both African American) allege Title VII disparate impact discrimination against the Department of Commerce.
- This action arises after a long procedural history; the only surviving claim is Title VII disparate impact, and the Department seeks dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Howard’s 1995 EEO complaint supports accrual date; she filed the current suit in 2005, more than six years later.
- Megginson’s EEO actions support accrual around 1998; her potential action would have expired by 2004, under §2401(a).
- The court treats §2401(a) as a jurisdictional bar, overriding Title VII’s shorter limitations period when applicable.
- Leave to amend the complaint to add six new claims is denied because amendments would alter the case’s scope and many claims are untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 2401(a) a jurisdictional bar to this Title VII action? | § 2401(a) does not apply to Title VII actions. | § 2401(a) is a jurisdictional six-year bar that governs suits against the United States. | § 2401(a) is jurisdictional and bars the action. |
| Should the court grant leave to amend to add new claims? | Amendment would address additional discrimination theories. | Amendment would radically alter scope and is untimely and futile. | Leave to amend denied; amendments would be futile or untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spannaus v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 824 F.2d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ( § 2401(a) creates a jurisdictional bar to sovereign-waiver actions)
- P & V Enters. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 516 F.3d 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (reaffirms Spannaus on § 2401(a) as jurisdictional)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (discusses tolling and jurisdictional status of § 2401(a))
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (Sup. Ct. 1990) (presumption of equitable tolling applicable to suits against the United States)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (limits equitable tolling where jurisdictional rules apply)
- Price v. Bernanke, 470 F.3d 384 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (outside time limit applies but shorter statutes govern where applicable)
- Kempthorne v. United States, 473 F.3d 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (statutory limitations in suits against the United States; jurisdictional status of § 2401(a))
- In re Interbank Funding Corp. Sec. Litig., 629 F.3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (amendment futility canbar futile if amended pleading would not survive motion to dismiss)