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.

Duma v. Unum Provident

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


May 29, 2010

KHADIJA DUMA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNUM PROVIDENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Robertson United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

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.

20100529

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.