Haynes v. DC Water is Life

5 Citing cases

  1. Haynes v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth.

    924 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2019)   Cited 48 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an ADEA plaintiff had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies where her administrative complaint raised only disability discrimination claims

    D.C. Water is an independent agency of the D.C. government that provides water and sewage service to the District of Columbia. Haynes v. DC Water is Life , 271 F. Supp. 3d 142, 145 (D.D.C. 2017). Haynes started working at D.C. Water’s predecessor organization in 1988.

  2. Emp. #1 v. Dep't of Behavioral Health

    23-cv-2553 (DLF) (D.D.C. Sep. 29, 2024)

    Id. A plaintiff who includes in his complaint “allegations outside the ambit of the predicate EEOC charge” fails to exhaust his administrative remedies “as surely as would an initial failure to file a timely EEOC charge.” Marshall v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 130 F.3d 1095, 1098 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Haynes v. DC Water Is Life, 271 F.Supp.3d 142, 15456 (D.D.C. 2017) (finding failure to exhaust race and age discrimination claims where EEOC charge only mentioned disability discrimination), aff'd sub nom. Haynes v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 924 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Employee 1 failed to exhaust his sex discrimination claim, and thus the Court will dismiss the claim with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).

  3. Ramos v. Garland

    22-cv-1143 (DLF) (D.D.C. Jul. 14, 2023)

    A plaintiff who includes in her complaint “allegations outside the ambit of the predicate EEOC charge” fails to exhaust her administrative remedies “as surely as would an initial failure to file a timely EEOC charge.” Marshall v. Fed. Express Corp., 130 F.3d 1095, 1098 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Haynes v. DC Water Is Life, 271 F.Supp.3d 142, 154-56 (D.D.C. 2017) (finding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his race and age discrimination claims where his EEO charge related only to disability discrimination). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Count III on this basis.

  4. Miles v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr. Corp.

    22-cv-287 (DLF) (D.D.C. Jun. 27, 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Deciding that a "retaliatory termination claim fail[ed]" where plaintiff never complained "that his supervisor's actions were related to his sex"

    Marshall v. Fed. Express Corp., 130 F.3d 1095, 1098 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Haynes v. DC Water Is Life, 271 F.Supp.3d 142, 154-56 (D.D.C. 2017) (finding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his race and age discrimination claims where his EEO charge related only to disability discrimination). Miles failed to exhaust his sex discrimination claim, and thus the Court will dismiss the claim with prejudice.

  5. Rasheed v. Dist. of Columbia Pub. Sch.

    Civil Action No. 16-00665 (CKK) (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 404, 128 S. Ct. 1147, 1159, 170 L. Ed. 2d 10 (2008). Although an Intake Questionnaire and an EEOC Charge "serve different purposes," Ahuja v. Detica Inc., 873 F. Supp. 2d 221, 229 (D.D.C. 2012) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (quoting Barzanty v. Verizon Pa., Inc., 361 Fed. Appx. 411, 415 (3d Cir. 2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted), "[s]uch a questionnaire can be treated as part of the 'charge,' exhausting the claims described in it." Haynes v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 924 F.3d 519, 528 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff'g Haynes v. D.C. Water Is Life, 271 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D.D.C. 2017) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). "There might be instances where the indicated discrimination is so clear or pervasive that the agency could infer from the allegations themselves that action is requested and required, but the agency is not required to treat every completed Intake Questionnaire as a charge."