Latson v. Sessions
256 F. Supp. 3d 36
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Elvenia Latson, an African‑American female Industry Operations Investigator at the ATF, applied and was not selected for four positions between Sept–Dec 2013 and was denied interview participation in Jan 2014; she filed an EEO complaint and received the DOJ Final Agency Decision on March 16, 2016.
- Latson filed this pro se federal lawsuit on July 18, 2016 (signed and filed with filing fee); she had earlier submitted a civil cover sheet on June 8, 2016 but without a complaint attached, and an IFP application/attached complaint was received on June 23, 2016 (the attached complaint was signed June 20, 2016).
- Latson asserted claims for race, gender, and age discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, and the ADEA (the Court also construed an age claim under the ADEA).
- Defendant moved to dismiss all claims as untimely, arguing Latson missed the 90‑day filing period from receipt of the final agency decision.
- The court found Title VII and ADEA claims were untimely (90‑day deadline expired June 14, 2016) because no complaint was filed before that date; the June 8 civil cover sheet alone was insufficient and the complaint filed with the IFP application was signed/received after the deadline.
- The court dismissed Title VII and ADEA claims with prejudice but denied dismissal as to the § 1981 components of Counts I, II, and V because § 1981 claims are governed by a three‑year limitations period and the challenged non‑selections occurred within three years of filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Title VII/ADEA claims | Latson contends she filed timely (relies on June 8 civil cover sheet and submissions) | Claims are time‑barred: 90 days from March 16, 2016 → deadline June 14, 2016; complaint filed July 18, 2016 | Held: Title VII and ADEA claims untimely and dismissed with prejudice |
| Effect of civil cover sheet / IFP filing on tolling | The June 8 cover sheet and later filings show timely filing | A cover sheet alone is not a complaint; an IFP tolls only if complaint filed with IFP before deadline | Held: June 8 cover sheet insufficient; IFP complaint was filed after deadline; no tolling |
| Equitable tolling available? | (Implicit) Latson sought to file timely; argues filings before deadline | No basis shown for extraordinary circumstances; late filing due to excusable neglect | Held: Equitable tolling denied; plaintiff failed to carry burden to justify tolling |
| Viability of § 1981 claims | Race/retaliation claims should proceed | Defendant moved to dismiss entire complaint as untimely | Held: § 1981 claims (Counts I, II, V) are timely under D.C. three‑year statute and survive dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausible claim required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (requirement of factual plausibility in complaints)
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (equitable tolling limited; not for garden‑variety neglect)
- Price v. Bernanke, 470 F.3d 384 (Title VII 90‑day rule applies to ADEA claims by federal employees)
- CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (§ 1981 encompasses retaliation claims)
- Mondy v. Sec’y of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051 (equitable tolling is extraordinary and narrowly applied)
- Turner v. Shinseki, 824 F. Supp. 2d 99 (equitable tolling where pro se timely submission deficient for clerical/formal defects)
- Ruiz v. Vilsack, 763 F. Supp. 2d 168 (IFP application tolling applies only when complaint accompanies IFP)