The opinion of the court was delivered by: Urbina, District Judge.
GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the court on the defendant's motion
for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56. Alternatively, the defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).*fn1 The plaintiff,
Robert Rann ("the plaintiff" or "Mr. Rann"), brings this suit
for damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., claiming that his employer,
the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL"), discriminated against him
on the basis of his age. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges
that his employer denied him a promotion because of his age and
gave the promotion instead to a 38-year-old employee. See
Compl. ¶ 22. The defendant, Elaine Chao, is the Secretary of
Labor ("the defendant"), named in her official capacity.
The defendant moves to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(1)
on the ground that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. See Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. ("Mot. for Summ. J.")
at 2. The defendant notes that the plaintiff himself concedes
that he failed to provide the DOL's Equal Employment Opportunity
("EEO") office with the documentation needed to complete a
formal investigation. See id.; Pl.'s Opp'n to Renewed Mot. for
Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Opp'n") at 9-12. The plaintiff counters by
asserting that because the EEOC had already obtained all
necessary information through a previous informal investigation,
this documentation was unnecessary and redundant. See Pl.'s
Opp'n at 9.
For the reasons that follow, the court holds that because the
plaintiff failed to comply with the EEOC's formal complaint
process, he has failed to fully exhaust his administrative
remedies before filing suit in this court. Accordingly, the
court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter and
will grant the defendant's renewed motion to dismiss.
Robert Rann, now age 66, is employed as a GS-13 Manpower
Analyst in the Department of Labor's Employment and Training
Administration. See Compl. ¶ 5. He has been employed by the
DOL since 1970. See id. In November 1997, the DOL advertised a
GS-14 Manpower Analyst position, and Mr. Rann submitted an
application. He interviewed for the position and was notified
that he had not been selected on March 16, 1998. See Mot. for
Summ. J. at 2. At the time, Mr. Rann was 64 years old. See
Compl. ¶ 5. The selectee, Jonathan Messenger, was 38 years old.
See id. ¶ 22.
The DOL's Civil Rights Center accepted this formal complaint
for investigation in October 1998. Over the next six months, the
EEO office sent Mr. Rann multiple requests for an affidavit, an
initial step in the formal investigation. Mr. Rann never
provided the EEO investigator with this information. See Mot.
for Summ. J. at 46; Pl.'s Opp'n at 10-12. On June 7, 1999, the
DOL's Civil Rights Office dismissed Mr. Rann's complaint for
failure to prosecute. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 12. Three months
later, Mr. Rann filed a complaint in this court.
In January 2000, the defendant made an initial motion to
dismiss for failure to exhaust. This court denied that motion,
allowing the plaintiff to seek relevant discovery in response to
the defendant's non-cooperation allegation. See Mem. Op. dated
July 26, 2000. The defendant now renews its motion to dismiss or
for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the court
will grant the defendant's motion to dismiss.
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has
jurisdiction. See District of Columbia Retirement Bd. v. United
States, 657 F. Supp. 428, 431 (D.C. 1987). In reviewing a motion
to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under
Rule 12(b)(1), the court must accept all the complaint's well-pled
factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences
in the plaintiffs favor. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,
236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Pitney Bowes v.
United States Postal Serv., 27 F. Supp.2d 15, 19 (D.C. 1998)
(Urbina, J.). The court is not required, however, to ...