Harris v. Daniel P. Driscoll

Background

Paul Harris sued Daniel P. Driscoll under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Harris alleged that he had service-connected disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and alcohol use disorder, and that he had worked for the United States Army Corps of Engineers from April 2011 until February 1, 2020.

Harris alleged that he requested one year of leave without pay to receive treatment, but the request was denied and he was allowed only limited leave. He also alleged that, when he could not return to work, a supervisor treated his conduct as a resignation and processed a personnel form classifying his separation as voluntary. Harris alleged that he did not resign or agree to end his employment.

Harris filed a disability-discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity office on May 26, 2022. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a notice of the right to sue on February 5, 2025. Harris then filed this action on May 5, 2025.

Motion and Legal Standard

Driscoll moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Driscoll argued that federal employees alleging discrimination must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor within 45 days of the discriminatory matter or personnel action, and that Harris’s failure to do so made his claims untimely.

Harris did not dispute that he missed the 45-day deadline. He argued that equitable tolling should apply. Equitable tolling is a potential extension of a filing deadline when circumstances justify treating the deadline as paused or extended.

Judicial Notice

The court granted Driscoll’s request for judicial notice of documents from the administrative Equal Employment Opportunity proceedings because they were public records. The court stated that it was not accepting the statements in those documents as true or using judicial notice to resolve disputed facts.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that Harris was required to contact an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor by at least March 17, 2020, but did not do so until May 26, 2022.

Harris argued that he did not know about the 45-day deadline. The court rejected that argument at the pleading stage because the complaint did not allege that Harris was unaware of the requirement. The court also noted that facts Harris raised in his opposition brief were not included in the complaint.

Harris argued that his mental-health conditions prevented timely action. The court explained that mental impairment can support equitable tolling when it is so severe that the person could not understand the need to act or could not prepare and file a claim, and when the person otherwise pursued the claim as diligently as possible. The court found that Harris’s complaint did not provide specific details showing that his impairments prevented him from asserting his rights between February 1, 2020, and May 26, 2022. The complaint’s allegations about the COVID-19 pandemic, disrupted treatment, and worsening mental health did not explain how his conditions affected his ability to act during that period.

Harris also argued that his supervisor’s alleged deception delayed his response. The court found that, even accepting the allegations that the personnel action was falsified, the complaint did not connect that conduct to Harris’s failure to contact an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor by March 17, 2020. The complaint also did not allege that the supervisor misrepresented the 45-day deadline.

Disposition

The court granted Driscoll’s motion to dismiss. It declined Driscoll’s request to dismiss the complaint with prejudice because the court could not definitively conclude that Harris would be unable to amend the complaint to allege facts supporting equitable tolling. The court granted Harris leave to amend and ordered that any amended complaint be filed within 28 days from the date of the order.