JAIYEOLA v. District of Columbia
40 A.3d 356
D.C.2012Background
- Jaiyeola sustained neck and back injuries in a 1998 on-the-job car accident while employed as a pipeline safety engineer for the PSC.
- He remained employed intermittently until December 15, 2000, then went on unpaid leave and received temporary total disability benefits.
- In 2001, he sought reinstatement; an independent medical examiner set two permanent restrictions, and the PSC denied reinstatement.
- From 2001–2003 Jaiyeola submitted updated medical evidence supporting return with fewer restrictions; PSC did not approve; he resigned in December 2004 for a lower-salary job with Maryland.
- He filed an EEOC complaint on November 10, 2003 alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, cross-filed with the OHR; a DOJ right-to-sue notice followed in 2005.
- He filed suit in Superior Court on February 2, 2006 alleging disability discrimination under the HRA and § 504 Rehabilitation Act; District moved for summary judgment on limitations and § 12-309 notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of limitations defenses | District waived defenses by not pleading them early | Waiver not improper; late assertion allowed with no prejudice | No reversible waiver; admissible to raise defenses late without prejudice |
| Proper limitations period for Rehabilitation Act § 504 claim | Borrow HRA limitations rather than Title VII/ADA periods | Should apply ADA/Title VII 300-day period or other | HRA one-year limitations borrowed for § 504 claim; tolling via § 12-309 applies |
| Tolling under HRA and notice | Administrative tolling periods cover time before suit | Tolling limited to EEOC cross-filing period | HRA tolling applies (EEOC cross-filing period); total period tolled from Nov 10, 2003 to Nov 29, 2005 |
| § 12-309 notice bar for HRA damages | Notice does not bar HRA liquidated damages claims | § 12-309 bars unliquidated damages; may bar some remedies | § 12-309 bars unliquidated damages but allows back pay and attorney’s fees claims |
| Prima facie case of disability discrimination | Discovery incomplete; need depo to prove disability/regarded as disabled | Dispositive issue on summary judgment; evidence undeveloped | Not decided on record; remand to address whether Jaiyeola could establish a prima facie case |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolsky v. Medical College of Hampton Roads, 1 F.3d 222 (4th Cir.1993) (considered borrowing a state anti-discrimination act’s limitations period for § 504)
- McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127 (4th Cir.1994) (applied NC Handicapped Persons Protection Act 180-day limit to § 504 claim)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1985) (established borrowing of state statutes of limitations for federal claims when none specified)
- Hickey v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist., 976 F.2d 980 (5th Cir.1992) (discrimination claims borrow state limitations; Title VI/§ 504 context)
- Adams v. District of Columbia, 740 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C.2010) (discussed borrowing rules for Rehabilitation Act claims; 2010 district court opinion cited)
- Barrett v. Covington & Burling LLP, 979 A.2d 1239 (D.C.2009) (election of remedies under HRA after administrative filing)
- Owens v. District of Columbia, 993 A.2d 1085 (D.C.2010) (notice and tolling principles under § 12-309 concepts)