Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

KHADIJA DUMA, Plaintiff, v. UNUM PROVIDENT, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge

All that remains of this case, after the dismissal of most of plaintiff's claims on 5/4/09 [#35] and plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of her ERISA claim against Unum Provident on 9/4/09 [#40], is plaintiff's Title VII claim against her employer, Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae moves to dismiss that claim [#8] for plaintiff's failure to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the last alleged discriminatory act. Plaintiff has resisted that motion — insisting that she did initiate the charging process with the EEOC, blaming the EEOC for sending her a draft that was riddled with mistakes and for bureaucratic "obstacles" — but it is clear from the record that plaintiff never did file a signed charge with the EEOC, and that, in fact, she did not approach the EEOC about its alleged mistakes until nearly a year after she knew about them. Nor does plaintiff's recitation of her telephone contacts with the EEOC describe the "extraordinary and carefully circumscribed circumstance []" in which this Court might exercise its power equitably to toll the period of limitations, see, Mondy v. Sec'y of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The motion to dismiss will be granted by an order that accompanies this memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DUMA v. UNUM PROVIDENT
(Jun 1, 2010)