Tapp v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Civil Action No. 2015-0768
| D.D.C. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Donald Tapp, a longtime WMATA superintendent, was terminated on Feb. 3, 2015; termination letter cited multiple reasons including failure to secure Montgomery Division petty cash.
- Tapp alleges gender discrimination (Title VII) based on his female predecessor purportedly having the same petty-cash practice without discipline; that claim (Count III) survived an earlier Rule 12(c) challenge and was limited to the petty-cash theory.
- Tapp visited an EEOC office on April 9, 2015, and gave an oral account to an EEOC employee but did not prepare or file a written, sworn charge and has no copy of any charge.
- Defendant WMATA moved for summary judgment on Count III, arguing Tapp failed to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 by not filing a written EEOC charge; limited discovery on exhaustion was conducted and Tapp was deposed.
- The court found no record evidence of a written charge, Tapp’s deposition confirmed no written filing, and oral statements to EEOC staff do not satisfy the statutory written-charge requirement.
- The court granted WMATA’s motion for summary judgment, holding Tapp failed to exhaust administrative remedies and offered no equitable basis to excuse that failure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tapp exhausted Title VII administrative remedies before suing | Tapp contends he completed EEOC paperwork and/or orally presented his charge during an EEOC visit | WMATA argues no written, sworn EEOC charge was filed; oral interview is insufficient | Held for WMATA: no written charge in record; exhaustion not satisfied |
| Whether EEOC employee’s refusal to process a charge excuses failure to file | Tapp argues Holowecki supports that refusal does not bar suit | WMATA argues statutory requirement still requires a written charge despite any refusal | Held for WMATA: Holowecki does not eliminate written-charge requirement |
| Whether erroneous advice by agency personnel can estop enforcement of filing rules | Tapp implies he could not proceed after EEOC refusal | WMATA contends erroneous advice does not excuse failure to satisfy statutory filing requirements | Held for WMATA: erroneous or discouraging oral advice does not excuse exhaustion |
| Whether plaintiff presented equitable reasons to excuse non-exhaustion | Tapp offered no documented follow-up or amended charge after the EEOC visit | WMATA points to absence of documentary proof and deposition admissions | Held for WMATA: no equitable basis shown; summary judgment granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (need for strict adherence to administrative filing requirements)
- Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (agency action not prerequisite to suit but does not eliminate written-charge requirement)
- Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433 (Title VII exhaustion functions like a limitations provision)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 614 F.3d 519 (defendant bears burden to prove affirmative defense by preponderance)