Protopapas v. Emcor Government Services, Inc.
251 F. Supp. 3d 249
D.D.C.2017Background
- Protopapas, a former EMCOR employee, sued alleging national origin, race, age, and disability discrimination under Title VII, ADEA, ADA, and the DCHRA after his August 16, 2013 termination.
- Plaintiff initially proceeded pro se, had two successive attorneys, and repeatedly failed to comply with Court orders and discovery requests; counsel later cited a family illness and death for delays.
- Plaintiff produced a single unsigned/undated “Charge of Discrimination” form; EEOC records showed no filed charge (no charge number or file).
- Defendant moved to compel discovery and for sanctions; defendant also moved for summary judgment arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for federal claims and that the DCHRA claim is time-barred.
- Plaintiff did not oppose the summary judgment motion, failed to appear at a sanctions hearing, and had no further contact with the Court after counsel’s late document production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII, ADEA, ADA claims were administratively exhausted | Protopapas asserts he filed an EEOC charge (referenced in complaint) | EMCOR shows no EEOC filing or right-to-sue letter; produced FOIA response confirming no formalized charge | Court: Claims dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
| Whether DCHRA claim is timely | Protopapas brought suit asserting DCHRA claim | EMCOR: suit filed >1 year after termination (Aug 2013); no tolling because no DCOHR/EEOC filing | Court: DCHRA claim time-barred and dismissed |
| Whether to award fees/sanctions for discovery failures | Plaintiff’s counsel produced some documents belatedly and cites serious family illness | EMCOR seeks attorney’s fees for bringing motion to compel and alleges incomplete production | Court: Motion to compel moot (documents produced); fees denied as unjust under circumstances |
| Whether summary judgment may be granted despite plaintiff’s silence | Protopapas did not oppose MSJ | EMCOR asks for judgment on undisputed facts and lack of exhaustion | Court: Proper to grant summary judgment on the uncontroverted record |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on movant to show absence of genuine dispute)
- Liberty Lobby v. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 (nonmoving party must present specific admissible evidence to survive summary judgment)
- Payne v. Salazar, 619 F.3d 56 (Title VII claims require administrative exhaustion)
- Washington v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 160 F.3d 750 (ADEA claims require EEOC charge exhaustion)
- Marshall v. Fed. Express Corp., 130 F.3d 1095 (ADA plaintiffs must exhaust via EEOC charge)