Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Savoy v. VMT Long Term Care Management Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


November 27, 2007

KIM RASHEEDA SAVOY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VMT LONG TERM CARE MANAGEMENT CO., INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ellen Segal Huvelle United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the D.C. Human Rights Act, and a common law claim for slander. Each defendant has moved to dismiss on the grounds that all of plaintiff's claims are time-barred and/or barred by the doctrine of res judicata,*fn1 and that plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to make out a claim for religious discrimination. Plaintiff has responded to these motions by merely refiling her complaint. Plaintiff, however, does not address the defendants' major contention - - that each of plaintiff's claims should be dismissed as being untimely. Since this contention is dispositive, the Court need not address the issue of whether the claims can be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Accepting as true the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, as the Court must do at this stage, it is clear that plaintiff was suspended from her job at the Washington Center for Aging Services ("WCA") when she refused to remove a black head covering, and she was terminated from her employment in February 2005.*fn2 The complaint was filed in this case on September 28, 2007, over two years and seven months after her last day of work. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue to plaintiff on June 15, 2007, advising her that she had to file her lawsuit within ninety days of receipt of the notice or her right to sue would be lost. The notice indicates that it was mailed to plaintiff on June 15, 2007; therefore, because she does not allege otherwise, plaintiff is presumed to have received the notice three days after it was mailed. See Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1 (1984); Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575, 578 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Plaintiff, however, did not file until 102 days later.

Given these undisputed facts, the Court must dismiss three of plaintiff's claims as untimely. Any claim under the D.C. Human Rights Act must be brought within one year of the unlawful discriminatory act, D.C. Code § 2-1403.16(a); any claim for slander must be brought within one year from the time the action accrues, D.C. Code § 12-301(4); and any Title VII complaint must be filed within ninety days of receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). This was not done here.*fn3 Accordingly, the defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted and plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.