United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued October 9, 1998 Decided December 1, 1998
No. 97-7227
Donald Washington,
Appellant
v.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 97cv00726)
Barbara B. Hutchinson argued the cause and filed the
briefs for appellant.
Nancy F. Langworthy argued the cause for appellee. With
her on the brief were Robert L. Polk and Robert J. Kniaz.
Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Rogers and Garland,
Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.
Edwards, Chief Judge: This case involves the timeliness of
a discrimination claim filed by Donald Washington against
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
("WMATA"). Washington raises various arguments as to
why this court should permit him to proceed on his claim,
notwithstanding his failure to satisfy a clear filing require-
ment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC"). We find Washington's contentions to be without
merit. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of WMATA.
I. Background
On March 31, 1975, Washington began his employment
with WMATA. He was hired for the position of Mechanical-
Electrical Repairman and was subsequently promoted to a
supervisory position. According to Washington, however, he
began to experience discriminatory treatment by WMATA
beginning in 1990. See Complaint p 6, reprinted in Joint
Appendix ("J.A.") 6. This alleged treatment consisted of,
inter alia, unfair promotion practices, "bogus" unfavorable
performance evaluations, and temporary re-assignment. See
id. pp 6-9, 11-13, reprinted in J.A. 6-8. The treatment
allegedly worsened after Washington complained of discrimi-
nation to his supervisors. See Affidavit of Donald Washing-
ton, reprinted in J.A. 74. On August 8, 1995, Washington
was demoted to a non-supervisory position.
On September 5, 1995, Washington filed an internal com-
plaint of discrimination with WMATA's Office of Civil Rights
("OCR"), claiming age and race discrimination and retaliation
in the terms and conditions of his employment, including his
demotion. See J.A. 84-88. On April 12, 1996, WMATA
issued an internal decision, finding that there was "insuffi-
cient evidence to support a charge of discrimination." Letter
from WMATA to Washington (April 12, 1996), reprinted in
J.A. 89. While noting that the decision was "final within
WMATA," the OCR's letter informed Washington that he
could file a complaint with the EEOC "no later than 180 days
from the date of the last alleged incident." Id. Five months
later, on September 12, 1996, Washington filed a race discrim-
ination charge against WMATA with the EEOC. See J.A. 34.
He amended this charge on January 6, 1997 to include claims
of age discrimination and retaliation, as he had originally
alleged to the OCR. See id. In April 1997, Washington
requested and received a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC.
On April 11, 1997, Washington filed suit in District Court,
alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. ss 621-634, and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. ss 2000e to
2000e-17. On September 19, 1997, WMATA filed a Motion to
Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, arguing that: (1)
because the last-alleged discriminatory act--the demotion--
occurred more than 180 days before Washington filed his
charge with the EEOC, his complaint was time-barred under
29 U.S.C. s 626(d)(1) and 42 U.S.C. s 2000e-5(e)(1), see J.A.
24-27; and (2) the court nevertheless lacked jurisdiction over
the ADEA claim because of WMATA's Eleventh Amendment
immunity. See id. at 27-32. Without reaching the sovereign
immunity issue, the District Court granted WMATA's motion,
concluding that Washington's claim was untimely, and that
equitable tolling was not appropriate. See Washington v.
WMATA, No. 97-0726, Memorandum and Order (D.D.C.
Nov. 17, 1997), reprinted in J.A. 1-3.
II. Analysis
Before suing under either the ADEA or Title VII, an
aggrieved party must exhaust his administrative remedies by
filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180
days of the alleged discriminatory incident. See 29 U.S.C.
s 626(d)(1) (1994); 42 U.S.C. s 2000e-5(e)(1) (1994); Currier
v. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc., No. 98-7020, 1998
WL 785623, at *2 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 1998). Washington,
however, did not file his charge with the EEOC until more
than a year after his allegedly discriminatory demotion.
Washington's first argument is that his September 5, 1995
internal complaint should be "considered filed with the EEOC
on the date it was filed with WMATA." Brief of Appellant
at 4. For this argument, Washington relies on EEOC regula-
tions entitled, "Procedures for Complaints of Employment
Discrimination Filed Against Recipients of Federal Financial
Assistance," see 29 C.F.R. pt. 1691 (1998), which provide, in
pertinent part, that:
A complaint of employment discrimination filed with an
agency, which is transferred or referred to EEOC under
this regulation, shall be deemed a charge received by
EEOC. For all purposes under title VII ..., the date
such a complaint was received by an agency shall be
deemed the date it was received by EEOC.
29 C.F.R. s 1691.6(a). WMATA, however, is not an "agency"
within the meaning of this provision. "Agency," for these
purposes, means "any Federal department or agency which
extends Federal financial assistance subject to any civil rights
provision(s) to which this regulation applies." 29 C.F.R.
s 1691.13(a). This definition clearly excludes WMATA, which
is neither a federal department, nor an agency that extends
federal financial assistance. Thus, WMATA's internal proce-
dures offer a separate forum for pursuing discrimination
complaints, which does not displace the ADEA or Title VII
filing requirements.
Washington next argues that, even if he did not satisfy the
filing requirement, the time for filing should be equitably
tolled on the ground that WMATA touted its internal proce-
dure as the appropriate forum for resolving discrimination
complaints, see Brief of Appellant at 10, 15, and thereby
"lulled [him] ... into presuming that he had met the require-
ments of the law." Id. at 11. Although Washington asserts
equitable tolling, under this circuit's case law, his claim may
be more accurately characterized as one for equitable estop-
pel. See Currier, 1998 WL 785623, at *4. In either event,
his claim fails. Washington is correct that the administrative
filing requirement is "not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit
in federal court," and is, therefore, subject to equitable toll-
ing. Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393
(1982). Washington is not entitled to tolling on either theory
in this case, however, for he has not adequately explained his
failure to timely exhaust.
In Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Supreme
Court noted:
We have allowed equitable tolling in situations where the
claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by
filing a defective pleading during the statutory period, or
where the complainant has been induced or tricked by
his adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing dead-
line to pass. We have generally been much less forgiv-
ing in receiving late filings where the claimant failed to
exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights.
498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990) (footnotes omitted). Thus, equitable
principles favor tolling where, for example, a defendant en-
gaged in "affirmative misconduct," Baldwin County Welcome
Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984), or "misled [a plaintiff]
about the running of a limitations period." Bowden v. United
States, 106 F.3d 433, 438 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
Here, Washington has demonstrated no affirmative miscon-
duct on the part of WMATA. Nor has he shown that
WMATA's decision letter disposing of his claim was mislead-
ing. Indeed, because 180 days had already expired between
Washington's demotion and the date the letter was issued,
Washington could not have relied on the letter to his detri-
ment. Moreover, the letter's reference to the filing deadline
was not literally incorrect, for it could have applied to an
instance of discriminatory conduct arising after Washington's
demotion. Finally, Washington, who was represented by
counsel during at least part of the filing period, failed to
demonstrate diligence; he filed his charge with the EEOC
five months after receiving WMATA's decision letter and over
a year after his demotion. "The court's equitable power to
toll the statute of limitations will be exercised only in extraor-
dinary and carefully circumscribed instances," Smith-Haynie
v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575, 579-80 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
(quotation omitted), and does "not extend to what is at best a
garden variety claim of excusable neglect." Irwin, 498 U.S.
at 96. Thus, we find that equitable principles do not warrant
tolling in this case.
Because our resolution of the timeliness issue disposes of
Washington's ADEA and Title VII claims, we need not reach
the question of whether his ADEA claim is nonetheless
barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We note, however, that
this issue is currently under advisement by this court in
Jones v. WMATA, No. 97-7186 (D.C. Cir. argued Sept. 9,
1998).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of WMATA.
So ordered.