Larry Haynes v. District of Columbia Water
924 F.3d 519
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Larry Haynes, a black employee over fifty, worked at D.C. Water as an Electrical Equipment Repairer for ~30 years; a 2014 reorganization replaced his role with an Industrial Journeyman Electrician position requiring a journeyman electrician license.
- D.C. Water set a March 31, 2015 deadline (later extended to May 31, 2015) for incumbent Repairers to obtain the journeyman license or be terminated.
- Haynes is dyslexic; he attended employer training, requested accommodations verbally, sought medical documentation, obtained a psychologist’s diagnosis in May 2015, but did not pass or complete the licensure exam by the extended deadline and was discharged.
- On May 27, 2015 Haynes received an EEOC Notice of Right to Sue; he filed suit pro se on September 29, 2016 and later amended the complaint (claims: ADA, DCHRA, Title VII, ADEA, § 1981, breach of contract).
- The district court granted summary judgment for D.C. Water: (1) ADA and DCHRA claims untimely; (2) Title VII and ADEA claims not administratively exhausted; (3) discovery under Rule 56(d) properly denied; (4) summary judgment appropriate on § 1981. This Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of ADA and DCHRA claims / equitable tolling for "non compos mentis" | Haynes says dyslexia/functional illiteracy rendered him unable to understand filing deadlines, so equitable tolling applies. | D.C. Water contends notices and Haynes’s actions show he was capable of managing affairs; tolling not warranted. | Court: No equitable tolling—medical records show coherent thought and ability to manage affairs; ADA and DCHRA claims untimely. |
| Exhaustion of Title VII and ADEA claims | Haynes: race and age claims arise from same facts and should be litigable. | D.C. Water: EEOC charge checked only "disability" and narrative alleged only accommodation claims; race/age not raised. | Court: Failed to exhaust—EEOC charge did not reasonably encompass race or age claims; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Denial of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) | Haynes sought discovery (emails, personnel docs, licensing communications, comparators) and argued summary judgment was premature. | D.C. Water: showed electricians were uniformly subject to the same licensing rule and deadlines; Haynes’s Rule 56(d) declaration lacked Convertino particularity. | Court: Denial of discovery not an abuse—Haynes’s 56(d) declaration failed to specify facts to be found and explain necessity; discovery not warranted. |
| § 1981 claim / pretext for termination | Haynes: employer treated (primarily white) colleagues more favorably (extra time, training, "back to school"), showing pretext and racial discrimination. | D.C. Water: termination was nondiscriminatory—required licensure under D.C. law; all impacted electricians were treated alike. | Court: Summary judgment proper—Haynes did not produce admissible evidence or specified discovery to show pretext or a genuine dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Epsilon Elecs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 857 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Thompson v. District of Columbia, 832 F.3d 339 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute and burden on nonmovant at summary judgment)
- Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling / non compos mentis standard)
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (exhaustion and "reasonably related" claims doctrine)
- Convertino v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (requirements for a Rule 56(d) affidavit/declaration)