Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Ridley v. Dynamic Vision Home Health Services

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

September 18, 2014

DONNA A. RIDLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
DYNAMIC VISION HOME HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants

DONNA A. RIDLEY, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.

For OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, District of Columbia, Defendant: Soriya R. Chhe, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL/DC, Washington, DC.

Page 75

MEMORANDUM OPINION

EMMET G. SULLIVAN, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11] and Federal Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or Untimeliness [ECF No. 14].[1] For the reasons discussed below, the motions will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a former employee of Dynamic Vision Home Health Services, alleges that she was wrongfully terminated on July 14, 2009 because of her race and national origin. See generally Compl. at 2; Am. Compl. at 1.[2] She brings this action against her former employer, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (" EEOC" ), and the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights (" DCOHR" ) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See generally Am. Compl. at 1; see id. Attach. (letter dated July 10, 2013).

Plaintiff contacted the EEOC by telephone on July 22, 2009, see Compl. at 3, 4, was asked to complete a questionnaire, see id. at 7 (Letter to plaintiff from EEOC dated July 22, 2009), and was informed that her discrimination complaint must be filed within 180 days of her termination, see id. She submitted a completed questionnaire to the EEOC, id. at 3, which the EEOC did not receive until June 28, 2010, id. at 6 (Letter to plaintiff from Mindy Weinstein, Acting Director, Washington Field Office, EEOC, dated July 8, 2013). Because plaintiff had not filed a charge of discrimination timely, the EEOC dismissed the charge and issued a right-to-sue letter on May 30, 2013. Id. at 12 (Dismissal and Notice of Rights dated May 30, 2013). Plaintiff believed that " for some reason they misplaced the document." Id. at 3; see Am. Compl. at 1.

Plaintiff also sought relief through the DCOHR. She completed an intake questionnaire on or about May 1, 2010, see Compl. at 18-19 (Employment Intake Questionnaire) and met with a DCOHR representative on July 16, 2010, see id. at 23 (Letter to plaintiff from Alease B. Parson, Supervisory Equal Opportunity Specialist, DCOHR, dated June 30, 2010). Ultimately, plaintiff received notice that DCOHR dismissed her case administratively:

On July 10, 2010 [plaintiff] informed [the] desk receptionist that [she] had filed and signed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in [its] Washington Field Office in reference to the same incident that [she] had wanted to pursue with the DC Office of Human Rights. In accordance with the Office of Human Rights (OHR) Contractual Agreement, the OHR is precluded from conducting an investigation once a Complainant has filed a case regarding the same issues with the EEOC.

Id. at 24 (Letter to plaintiff from Gustavo F. Velasquez, Director, DCOHR, dated July 21, 2010).

Plaintiff " would like [the Court] to check this matter" because the EEOC and

Page 76

DCOHR " didn't do the job right." Id. at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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