Jouanny v. Embassy of France in the United States
280 F. Supp. 3d 3
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Annie Jouanny, a receptionist at the French Embassy, sued under the ADEA alleging age discrimination and retaliation; original complaint filed Jan. 27, 2016.
- Her initial EEOC/EEO charge (Oct. 25, 2014) alleged only age discrimination arising from a threatened termination and did not check "retaliation" or allege retaliatory conduct.
- Plaintiff amended her administrative (EEO) complaint to add a retaliation claim on Mar. 8, 2017—more than 13 months after filing suit—and the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on Mar. 9, 2017.
- Plaintiff waited until Sept. 8, 2017 (over 180 days after the right-to-sue letter) to move for leave to amend her federal complaint to add an administratively exhausted retaliation claim.
- Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the original retaliation claim for failure to exhaust; Plaintiff sought leave to amend her complaint to add the now-exhausted retaliation claim.
- The court concluded original retaliation claim was unexhausted and denied leave to amend as futile because Plaintiff missed the 90-day filing window after the right-to-sue letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies for retaliation before filing suit | Jouanny contends her later-amended EEO charge exhausts retaliation | Embassy contends original EEO charge contained no retaliation claim and thus no exhaustion | Held for Defendant: original retaliation claim is unexhausted because the Oct. 2014 charge did not allege retaliation or provide facts to prompt an investigation into retaliation |
| Whether Plaintiff timely sought to add an administratively exhausted retaliation claim after receiving right-to-sue letter | Jouanny argues amendment is permissible and delay causes no undue prejudice; some alleged retaliatory acts were ongoing | Embassy argues Plaintiff waited >90 days after the right-to-sue letter and thus missed the statutory filing window | Held for Defendant: Plaintiff waited >180 days to move to amend—beyond 90-day limit—so amendment is untimely and futile |
| Whether continuing-violation theory saves late claims | Jouanny argues retaliation was ongoing and includes acts within the 300-day period | Embassy relies on Morgan and related authority rejecting continuing-violation tolling for discrete acts | Held for Defendant: continuing-violation theory cannot salvage the untimely amendment; Morgan applies to ADEA claims |
| Whether leave to amend should be permitted despite timing | Jouanny emphasizes lack of prejudice to Defendant and administrative exhaustion via amended EEO charge | Embassy emphasizes statutory deadlines and prejudice irrelevant if amendment is futile | Held for Defendant: leave denied as futile under Foman because proposed claim would be untimely and therefore not viable |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 160 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (employees must exhaust administrative remedies under ADEA before suing)
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (lawsuit limited to claims "like or reasonably related" to EEOC charge and arising from the expected administrative investigation)
- Marshall v. Fed. Express Corp., 130 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (vague EEOC charges do not satisfy exhaustion for claims not fairly embraced)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete discriminatory acts are individually time-barred; continuing-violation theory is limited)
- Ikossi v. Dep't of Navy, 516 F.3d 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to move to add claims within 90-day window)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend may be denied when amendment is futile)