McGuffin v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 03 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:16-CV-467-D,5:16-CV-467-D |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | CLARENCE ANDREW MCGUFFIN, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
On June 22, 2016, Clarence Andrew McGuffin ("McGuffin" or "plaintiff") filed a complaint against Carolyn W. Colvin ("Colvin" or "defendant"), the acting Commissioner of the Social Security Admimstration ("SSA") [D.E. 1]. McGuffin claims that the SSA discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. On August 25, 2016, Colvin moved to dismiss McGuffin's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [D.E. 5] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 6]. On September 21, 2016, McGuffin responded in opposition [D.E. 9]. On October 3, 2016, Colvin replied [D.E. 10]. As explained below, the court grants Colvin's motion to dismiss McGuffin's untimely complaint.
On February 8, 2010, the SSA hired McGuffin as an attorney advisor for the SSA's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. Compl. [D.E. 1] ¶¶ 9-10. McGuffin, an honorably discharged veteran of the Gulf War, suffers from post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety due to his military service. Id. 2, ¶ 184. McGuffin informed the SSA of his disabled status when he applied for the position, and the SSA hired him. Id. ¶ 4. According to McGuffin, his disabilities substantially limit his ability to work. Id. ¶ 1. As such, McGuffin repeatedly requested reasonable accommodations, but the SSA either denied his requests or moved slowly to implement his requests. Id. ¶¶ 28-39. On February 4, 2011, the SSA terminated McGuffin's employment. Id. ¶ 11.
After his termination, McGuffin requested a hearing before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging that the SSA discrirninated against him based on his disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See [D.E. 6-2] (McGuffin v. Colvin, EEOC Decision No. 430-2011-00401X (Dec. 2, 2013)).1 On December 2, 2013, an EEOC administrative judge found that the SSA did not discriminate against McGuffin when it terminated his employment. Id. at 17. On January 9, 2014, the SSA adopted the administrative judge's decision without modification and issued a final order. See [D.E. 6-3]. On February 14, 2014, McGuffin appealed the SSA's order to the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations. See [D.E. 6-4] (McGuffin v. Colvin, EEOC Appeal No. 0120141288 (Mar. 18, 2016)). On March 18, 2016, the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations affirmed the SSA's order. Id. at 5.
On June 22, 2016, McGuffin filed a civil action in this court asserting the same disability discrimination claim against Colvin. On August 25, 2106, Colvin moved to dismiss McGuffin's complaint, arguing that McGuffin's complaint is untimely and that equitable tolling does not apply.
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" tests whether the complaint is legally and factually sufficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd, 132 S. Ct. 1327 (2012); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008);accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam). A court need not accept a complaint's "legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). The court, however, "accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in weighing the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Id. Construing the facts in this manner, a complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. (quotation omitted).
The standard used to evaluate the sufficiency of a pleading is flexible, "and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (quotation omitted). Erickson, however, does not "undermine [the] requirement that a pleading contain 'more than labels and conclusions.'" Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 304 n.5 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-83 (2009); Coleman, 626 F.3d at 190; Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd., 591 F.3d at 255-56; Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 makes it unlawful for a federal agency to discriminate against an "otherwise qualified" federal employee with a disability "solely by reason of . . . his disability." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); see Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera, 249 F.3d 259, 266-68 (4th Cir. 2001); Vanyan v. Hagel, 9 F. Supp. 3d 629, 637 (E.D. Va. 2014). A federal employee who believes that his employing agency discriminated against him in violation of the Rehabilitation Act must navigate the prescribed administrative process before filing a civil action in a United States District Court. See generally Pueschel v. Peters, 577 F.3d 558, 562-64 (4th Cir. 2009); Hooven-Lewis, 249 F.3d at 266-71; Adcock v. Roche, No. 5:04-CV-208(DF), 2006 WL 1285045, at *4-5 (M.D. Ga. May 5, 2006) (unpublished). The employee first must contact and consult with a counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory action. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). If consulting with the counselor does not resolve the matter, the employee must file a complaint with the agency thatallegedly discriminated against him. See id. §§ 1614.105(d), 1614.106(a)-(b). The agency must then investigate the claim. See id. §§ 1614.106(e)(2), 1614.108. If, after investigation, the agency concludes that no discrimination occurred, the employee may request that the agency issue a final agency decision to that effect, which the employee then can appeal to the EEOC or can challenge in a civil action filed in a United States District Court. See id. §§ 1614.108(f), 1614.110(b), 1614.401(a), 1614.407(a); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).2 Instead of requesting a final decision, the employee may request a hearing before an administrative judge appointed by the EEOC. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.108(f), 1614.109(a). If the employee chooses to proceed to a hearing before an administrative judge—as McGuffin did—the administrative judge will hold a hearing on the employee's claim and issue a written decision. See id. § 1614.109(i). The agency then either accepts or rejects the administrative judge's decision by issuing its own final order, which the employee may appeal to the EEOC or challenge in a civil action filed in a United States District Court. See id. §§ 1614.110(a), 1614.401(a), 1614.407(a). An employee "aggrieved" by the EEOC's decision on appeal may file a civil action in a United States District Court seeking de novo review of his discrimination claim. See id. § 1614.407(c); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 848, 864 (1976); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 419-20 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The employee must file his civil action within 90 days of receiving notice of the EEOC's final decision on the appeal. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407(c); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).
On March 18, 2016, the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations issued its final decision on McGuffin's appeal from the SSA's order. See [D.E. 6-4]. That decision triggered the 90-day period for McGuffin. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407(c); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). In its decision, the EEOCnotified McGuffin of his right "to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days" from the date McGuffin received the decision. [D.E. 6-4] 4 (emphasis in original). The Certificate of Mailing attached to the EEOC's final decision also told McGuffin that "[f]or timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed." Id. at 5 (emphasis in original). Thus, McGuffin was presumed to have received the EEOC's final decision on March 23, 2016, and the 90-day deadline for filing a civil action fell on June 21, 2016. McGuffin, however, did not file his complaint with this court until June 22, 2016. See Compl. [D.E. 1]. McGuffin "does not dispute Defendant's contention that he missed the formal filing deadline that the regulation imposes" and admits that he "knew the deadline to be June 21, 2016." [D.E. 9] 20. Having failed to file suit within the 90-day filing period, McGuffin's complaint was untimely. See, e.g., Mullen v. McHugh, 452 F. App'x 326, 329-30 (4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished); Slate, 459 F. Supp. 2d 423 at 430.3
Notwithstanding McGuffin's untimely complaint, McGuffin contends that the court should equitably toll the 90-day filing period and permit his case to proceed. A plaintiff claiming discrimination due to disability under the Rehabilitation Act who fails to file suit within the 90-day filing period "generally forfeits the right to pursue his claim." Radin v. Runyon, 112 F.3d 510, *1 & n.* (4th Cir. 1997) (unpublished table opinion); see Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 150-52 (1984). The 90-day filing requirement, however, is "not a jurisdictionalprerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling." Crabill v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 423 F. App'x 314, 321 (4th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted) (unpublished); see Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 93-96 (1990); Laber, 438 F.3d at 429 n.25.
Although courts can equitably toll the 90-day filing period, the party seeking the "extraordinary remedy" of equitable tolling bears "a...
To continue reading
Request your trial