Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-784.
July 10, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff's pro se complaint and response to the May 14, 2010 Memorandum and Order Staying Case.
Plaintiff has alleged that she was disciplined and ultimately terminated from her employment with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA"), and she brings claims of "Retaliation, Discrimination, Defamation of Character, Wrongful Termination, Emotional Distress and Hostile Work Environment." Compl. at 6 (page number designated by the Court). The Court presumed that plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., as amended, and stayed this action pending plaintiff's submission of a right to sue letter issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) and § 2000e-5(f)(1). Plaintiff's sole submission in response to the May 14, 2010 Order is a copy of correspondence dated October 13, 2006 from WMATA's Office of Civil Rights acknowledging receipt of plaintiff's August 31, 2006 written allegation of sexual harassment by a co-worker. Nothing in this letter suggests that plaintiff pursued a claim before the EEOC, notwithstanding the requirement that a Title VII plaintiff exhaust her administrative remedies by pursuing a claim with the EEOC before filing suit in district court. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), (f)(1). However, the Court will allow this action to proceed at this stage, both in light of plaintiff's pro se status and defendant's option to present exhaustion of administrative remedies as an affirmative defense. See Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (stating that untimely exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, and the defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving it); Carty v. District of Columbia, No. 09-1238, 2010 WL 1172583, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2010); Perry v. U.S. Dep't of State, 669 F. Supp. 2d 60, 65 (D.D.C. 2009).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the stay entered on May 14, 2010 is LIFTED; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #2] is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [Dkt. #3] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing at a later date; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to use a post office box [Dkt. #4] as a mailing address is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.