The opinion of the court was delivered by: Friedman, District Judge.
Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. In
response, plaintiff has filed an opposition and a request to
postpone any ruling on the motion for summary judgment pending
further discovery. Pursuant to the Court's Order of February 24,
1999, defendants submitted a supplemental affidavit. Upon
consideration of the papers filed, the Court concludes that
defendants have established that they are entitled to judgment as
a matter of law on all counts except Count 4, alleging breach of
contract, and that the additional discovery sought by plaintiff
in her Rule 56(f) motion is irrelevant to the Court's analysis.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment therefore will be granted
in part, and plaintiff's request for further discovery will be
Plaintiff Dr. Myrta Lois Hunt is a 57 year-old female dentist
with a history of unfortunate legal representation. She has been
working for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections as
a correctional officer since 1983. She alleges that when she was
hired as a correctional officer, she was told that there were no
dental officer positions open, but that when a dental officer
position opened, she would receive priority consideration for
that position if she was working as a correctional officer. From
1983 until 1989, she applied for numerous dental officer
positions, but she never was hired as a dental officer. In 1989,
frustrated with the Department, she filed a gender discrimination
complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and
she received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC in 1990. Pl's
Opp., Exh. 1 (Affidavit of Dr. Hunt) at ¶ 9. In 1990, she filed
suit alleging age and gender discrimination. Pl's Opp., Exh. 1
(Affidavit of Dr. Hunt) at ¶ 58. Her attorney in that case never
served the complaint, and the suit was dismissed for want of
prosecution. Id. at ¶ 59.
In December 1994, represented by a new attorney, Dr. Hunt filed
a second employment discrimination suit against the Department
alleging age and gender discrimination. Pl's Opp., Exh. 1
(Affidavit of Dr. Hunt) at ¶ 60. Her attorney failed, however, to
advise her that the time for filing suit on the right-to-sue
letter issued in 1990 had expired and that she needed to file
another discrimination complaint with the EEOC in order to obtain
a new right-to-sue letter. Id. at ¶ 61. Her suit therefore was
dismissed for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. Ds'
Mot. for Summ. J., Exh. 8 (Hunt v. Barry, Civil Action No.
94-2669, Order of July 31, 1995 (D.D.C.)). Her lawyer in that
case has since been disbarred, and Dr. Hunt has been unable to
reach that lawyer to retrieve certain documents. Pl's Opp., Exh.
1 (Affidavit of Dr. Hunt) at ¶ 67.
Defendants have submitted an affidavit of a Medical Director at
the Department of Corrections asserting that "the last dental
officer hired in the D.C. Department of Corrections was May 3,
1993" and that none has been hired since. Affidavit of Eliza
Taylor, M.D. at ¶ 3. Dr. Hunt testified at her deposition that
she applied for a dental officer position sometime in the spring
of 1995. She testified that she did not know whether interviews
ever were conducted for the position, but she stated that she
understood that someone had been hired for the position because
she "just heard — just heard, you know — just passing through. I
think I just heard passing through the infirmary at the Jail."
Pl's Opp., Exh. 4 (Deposition of Dr. Hunt) at 8-10.
On June 23, 1997, Dr. Hunt filed a seven count complaint in
this Court. Count 1 alleges age discrimination in violation of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Count 2
alleges gender discrimination and Count 3 alleges retaliation,
both in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Counts 5, 6 and 7 allege
gender discrimination, retaliation and age discrimination in
violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C.Code
§ 1-2501, et seq. Count 4 is a breach of contract claim; Dr.
Hunt alleges that defendants breached a provision of the
collective bargaining agreement which provides that employees who
serve in an acting capacity at a higher level position than their
permanent position for longer than ninety consecutive days must
be compensated commensurate with the salary of the higher
A. ADEA Age Discrimination Claim
Dr. Hunt alleges that the Department of Corrections failed to
hire her for available dental officer positions because of her
age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. The ADEA requires plaintiff to file her
complaint with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged
discriminatory act giving rise to the complaint. See
29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2). A discriminatory event giving rise to Dr. Hunt's
claim therefore must have taken place in the 300 day period
between June 5, 1995, and April 3, 1996, when Dr. Hunt filed her
complaint with the EEOC. Dr. Hunt has alleged that the
discriminatory event at issue is the Department's failure to hire
her for a dental officer position. See Complaint at ¶¶ 23-26.
She has alleged no other discriminatory events or acts by the
Department within the applicable statute of limitations.
Dr. Hunt is fifty-seven years old, and she therefore is a
member of the protected class. It is not at all clear, however,
that she applied for and was denied a position within the
relevant period of the statute of limitations between June 5,
1995 and April 3, 1996. She claims that she applied for a dental
officer position sometime in 1995, but she does not remember
exactly when she applied. See Pl's Opp., Exh. 4 (Deposition of
Dr. Hunt) at 8 ("[I]t was in '95. . . . [I]t may have been
springtime. I'm not sure").
Even assuming a sufficient showing that she applied for and was
not hired for that job within the limitations period, there is
absolutely no evidence that the Department hired anyone as a
dental officer during that period or continued to advertise the
position. Dr. Hunt has not provided any evidence to support the
fourth element of her prima facie case other than her sketchy
recollection of what she may have "heard passing through the
infirmary" in 1995, while defendants have submitted an affidavit
stating that no dental officer has been hired by the Department
since May 3, 1993. Affidavit of Eliza Taylor, M.D. at ¶ 3.
Because Dr. Hunt has provided no evidence that anyone was hired
as a dental officer in 1995 when she applied for the dental
officer position ...