Clarke v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an ADEA plaintiff had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies where her administrative complaint raised only disability discrimination claims
• explaining that the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling is ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion unless based upon an error of law
• evaluating a Rule 56(d) motion in light of, among other things, the movant’s theory of the case
• stating that, “regardless of the time at which a motion for summary judgment is filed, an affidavit or declaration submitted under Rule 56(d) must” meet the criteria set forth in Convertino v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 684 F.3d 93, 99–100 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
• noting that a plaintiff “may only bring claims in district court that were actually part of the administrative charge” or that, “‘at a minimum . . . arise from the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow the charge of discrimination’” (omission in original
• rejecting argument that agency was provided notice where plaintiff’s charge “contained no claims or factual allegations that could reasonably be expected upon investigation to lead to evidence supporting” the types of discrimination he later asserted in federal court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).