Rahimi v. Weinstein, 271 F. Supp. 3d 98

Background

Rahimi worked for VOA Persian from 2008–2015 under successive purchase-order contracts performing on-air and production roles; she alleges retaliation beginning in 2010 after she served as an EEO witness.
Her supervisors restricted her to night shifts (preventing her from working the same morning shift as colleague Mehdi Falahati), causing lost income and alleged denial of TV-host roles and mandatory morning meetings.
Rahimi repeatedly applied for federal and contractor positions (2010–2015) but alleges nonselection because of the morning-shift restriction; she was separated for budgetary reasons on May 26, 2015.
She filed an informal EEO complaint July 9, 2015, a formal complaint September 25, 2015, obtained a right-to-sue letter, and sued in federal court alleging multiple Title VII retaliation counts and one misclassification claim.
The agency moved to dismiss or for partial summary judgment, arguing (1) several nonselection claims were unexhausted administratively and (2) certain nonselection claims concerned independent-contractor positions not covered by Title VII.
Court disposition: Counts IV–VIII (five federal nonselection claims) dismissed for failure to exhaust; Counts X–XII (three contractor-position nonselection claims) survive dismissal pending factual development on employee vs. contractor status.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Rahimi timely exhaust administrative remedies for nonselection claims (Counts IV–VIII)?	Rahimi invokes equitable estoppel because HR advised her contractors could not use EEO process, so delay was reasonable.	Agency: claims occurred >45 days before EEO contact; exhaustion required; estoppel not met.	Dismissed — failed to exhaust; estoppel not established against government.
Does erroneous advice from agency HR support equitable estoppel excusing untimely exhaustion?	Rahimi says misinformation and her efforts to resolve internally justify estoppel.	Agency stresses strong presumption against estoppel versus government and that erroneous advice alone is insufficient.	Denied — court requires compelling proof; ordinary erroneous advice does not create estoppel.
Are the contractor nonselection claims (Counts X–XII) barred because Title VII covers only employees/applicants?	Rahimi: characterization is a factual inquiry (economic realities); her prior contract role resembled federal employment, so claims should survive discovery.	Agency: solicitations and labels show independent-contractor positions; not Title VII-covered employees.	Survived — court denies dismissal; Spirides economic-realities test requires factual record.
Should the court decide employee vs. contractor status from contract language now?	Rahimi: no — summary judgment premature; parties need discovery on control and economic realities.	Agency: contract labels and solicitations indicate nonemployee status, supporting dismissal.	Court agrees with Rahimi — factual development required; heavy reliance on contract labels is improper.

Key Cases Cited

Payne v. Salazar, 619 F.3d 56 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (administrative exhaustion is required before suing under Title VII)
Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (EEOC time limits are subject to equitable tolling/estoppel)
Spirides v. Reinhardt, 613 F.2d 826 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (employee/contractor status uses economic-realities/agency control test)
Currier v. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc., 159 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (equitable estoppel requires employer's affirmative misleading conduct)
ATC Petroleum, Inc. v. Sanders, 860 F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (estoppel against government must be applied sparingly and is tightly constrained)
Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) (erroneous advice by government employee generally cannot create estoppel)
Rann v. Chao, 346 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (caution against applying equitable estoppel to bar statutory exhaustion requirements)