Stone v. Landis Construction Corp.
733 F. Supp. 2d 148
D.D.C.2010Background
- Plaintiff Alfred L. Stone, proceeding pro se, alleges race and age discrimination in hiring by Landis Construction Corp. in 2006.
- Stone applied for a Master Plumber position advertised in The Washington Post and interviewed on May 6, 2006.
- Landis purportedly questioned Stone’s ability to perform physical labor due to age and later hired a 50-year-old, Dan Cavell, in October 2006.
- Stone filed an EEOC discrimination charge on June 13, 2007; the EEOC dismissed the charge as untimely on August 24, 2009.
- Stone’s complaint was filed in district court in November 2009; the court granted summary judgment for defendants on Title VII and ADEA claims and dismissal on the 1981 claim, with reconsideration sought by Stone in October 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Stone exhaust administrative remedies for Title VII and ADEA claims? | Stone contends timely filing via EEO process. | Defendants contend EEOC charge untimely; failure to exhaust bars review. | Plaintiff failed to timely file with EEOC; Title VII and ADEA claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion. |
| Whether the EEOC charge timing prevents court review of Title VII/ADEA claims? | Untimeliness should be excused due to Tolling from IFP proceedings. | Untimely EEOC charge forecloses judicial review. | Untimely EEOC charge bars Title VII and ADEA claims; dismissal affirmed. |
| Is Landis, as CEO/individual, subject to Title VII or ADEA claims? | Landis individually liable under Title VII/ADEA. | Individual not subject to Title VII/ADEA claims. | No individual-capacity Title VII/ADEA claims against Landis; dismissal of those claims affirmed. |
| Does §1981 claim survive against Landis Construction for race discrimination? | Race discrimination in hiring supported by §1981 claim. | Defendant provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for hiring decision; plaintiff cannot show pretext. | Court grants summary judgment on §1981 claim; no evidence of racial motivation. |
| What is the overall disposition of the case after summary judgment and dismissal? | N/A | N/A | Title VII and ADEA claims dismissed; §1981 claim granted summary judgment for defendants; reconsideration denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) (timing for filing suit after charge; employment discrimination limits)
- Carter v. George Washington Univ., 387 F.3d 872 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (exhaustion under worksharing arrangements; 300-day window)
- Washington v. White, 231 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2002) (tolling considerations for filing period when proceeding in forma pauperis)
- Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 514 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (worksharing agreements affecting ADEA/state-law commencement)
- Vickers v. Powell, 493 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Jackson v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (pretext standard after nondiscriminatory reason given)
- George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (employer’s honest belief in reasons; not pretextual if believed)
- Paquin v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 119 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (pretext standard for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden on movant to show absence of genuine dispute)