Stewart v. Johnson
125 F. Supp. 3d 554
M.D.N.C.2015Background
- Willie Stewart, an African-American TSA employee, applied for a manager position in Feb 2003, was not selected, filed an EEO complaint, and later received a proposed demotion; he resigned Jan 14, 2004.
- OFO ultimately found discrimination in an November 14, 2011 decision (reissued Jan 4, 2012); OFO ordered reinstatement and back pay but remanded compensatory damages for DHS investigation.
- DHS issued a Final Agency Decision dated May 17, 2013; that decision was emailed to Stewart and his counsel on May 22, 2013, and a mailed copy was (re)sent June 28, 2013 after mailing difficulties.
- Stewart sued Sept 27, 2013 asserting race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII; DHS moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court treated the administrative documents attached to the motion as properly considered and dismissed: (1) Section 1981 claims (both discrimination and retaliation) and (2) Title VII claims as time-barred for failure to file within 90 days of notice of final agency action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 1981 to federal employee claims | Stewart: retaliation claim may proceed under § 1981 because § 1981 is silent on nondiscriminatory retaliation | DHS: Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination and retaliation claims | Court: § 1981 claims (discrimination and retaliation) dismissed — Title VII is exclusive remedy |
| When the 90-day Title VII filing period began | Stewart: 90-day period began on June 28, 2013 (mailed certified copy) | DHS: 90-day period began May 22, 2013 (email delivery of final agency decision) | Court: 90-day clock started May 22, 2013 (email notice); suit filed Sept 27, 2013 was untimely |
| Whether equitable tolling excuses untimeliness | Stewart: DHS delayed administrative process in 2012, warranting equitable tolling | DHS: no basis to excuse or toll the 90-day period | Court: equitable tolling not available; Stewart failed to show extraordinary circumstances or due diligence |
| Constructive discharge claim and exhaustion/amendment | Stewart (in briefing): complaint alleges constructive discharge | DHS: plaintiff did not plead or administratively exhaust constructive discharge | Court: cannot amend via briefing; claim not pled or exhausted and, in any event, would be time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be more than labels and conclusions)
- Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (1976) (Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination)
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling standards for government claims)