A recent Eastern District of Virginia case, Zettervall v. Leidos, serves as a cautionary tale against representing yourself in an employment dispute. Matthew Zettervall sued his employer, Leidos, for religious discrimination under Title VII and disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Mr. Zettervall filed his complaint against Leidos pro se (without an attorney). He claimed that he was fired for obtaining a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination mandate and that his employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his hearing loss. The defendant, Leidos, moved to dismiss the complaint. Leidos advised Mr. Zettervall that under Eastern District of Virginia rules he had 21 days to file a response. Mr. Zettervall did not file a response to the motion to dismiss, and the court proceeded considering only the defendant’s motion.
For a plaintiff’s claim to survive a motion to dismiss the plaintiff must plead factual content allowing the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. While the court does construe the pleadings of pro se litigants liberally, that deference is not without limits. For example, before filing a lawsuit for ADA or Title VII violations an individual must file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) within 180 days of the alleged misconduct. In some circumstances, this timeframe is extended to 300 days. However, “A claim is time-barred if it is not filed within these time limits.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109 (2002).
Based on the pleadings the court found that Mr. Zettervall must have filed an EEOC charge by September 20, 2022, to avoid being time-barred. However, the EEOC charge was filed in November of 2022. Mr. Zettervall did not offer “facts in his Complaint to dispute this conclusion, nor did he oppose Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.” Zettervall v. Leidos, 2023 WL 4494167 *2 (E.D.VA. 2023). As such the court dismissed his claim. Any subsequent amendment to his complaint would not resolve the fundamental flaw of failing to file an administrative charge with the EEOC in a timely manner. Therefore, Mr. Zettervall’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning he cannot refile his case.
If you need more guidance or information, contact the employment law attorneys at General Counsel, P.C. today at 703-556-0411, intake@gcpc.com, or use this Contact Us Form. Attorneys at General Counsel, P.C. specialize in labor and employment law and have experience working with businesses, non-profits, and individuals throughout the DC Metropolitan area and across Virginia, specifically in Fairfax County, Arlington, and Loudoun County.