Wilson v. Department of Labor

D.C. Circuit

Wilson v. Department of Labor

672 F. App'x 7

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 8, 2016

DocketNo. 15-5345

StatusPublished

This text of 672 F. App'x 7 (Wilson v. Department of Labor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Department of Labor, 672 F. App'x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 10, 2015, be affirmed. The Department of Labor’s release of the Conciliation Agreement on appeal has mooted appellant’s claim under the Freedom of Information Act. See Crooker v. Dep’t of State, 628 F.2d 9, 10 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (per curiam). Moreover, the district court correctly dismissed appellant’s Title VII claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Because appellant made no attempt at exhaustion, timely or otherwise, the doctrine of equitable tolling is not applicable here. See Dyson v. District of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415, 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Phillips v. Heine, 984 F.2d 489, 492 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 10, 2015, be affirmed. The Department of Labor’s release of the Conciliation Agreement on appeal has mooted appellant’s claim under the Freedom of Information Act. See Crooker v. Dep’t of State, 628 F.2d 9, 10 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (per curiam). Moreover, the district court correctly dismissed appellant’s Title VII claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Because appellant made no attempt at exhaustion, timely or otherwise, the doctrine of equitable tolling is not applicable here. See Dyson v. District of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415, 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Phillips v. Heine, 984 F.2d 489, 492 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 F. App'x 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-department-of-labor-cadc-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack