MASSIE v. GOVT. OF DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S OF KOREA
Cite as 592 F.Supp.2d 57 (D.D.C. 2008)

that despite due diligence he or she was
prevented by circumstances beyond his
or her control from contacting the counselor within the time limits, or for other
reasons considered sufficient by the
agency or the Commission.
29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2). Plaintiff has
the ‘‘burden of pleading and proving equitable reasons to excuse his failure to comply with the 45–day requirement under 29
C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2).’’ O’Neal v. England, No. 03–5261, 2004 WL 758965, at *1
(D.C.Cir. Apr. 7, 2004) (citing Saltz v. Lehman, 672 F.2d 207, 209 (D.C.Cir.1982)).

57

William Thomas MASSIE,
et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
The GOVERNMENT OF the DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 06–00749 (HHK).
United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Dec. 30, 2008.

[13] Plaintiff has not suggested that he
was unaware of the time limit or that he
was prevented from contacting an EEO
counselor. In fact, plaintiff had considerable experience with employment claims
given that he had filed at least four union
grievances and one EEO complaint.
(Def.’s Exhs. E, M.) And, as explained
above, he had developed a reasonable suspicion of discrimination by February 2002.
Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to invoke
the equitable tolling doctrine.10

Background: Former members of crew of
United States Naval vessel captured by
the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) in
1968, and the widow and estate of the
vessel’s captain, brought action under the
terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), alleging various torts, under California, Illinois, Virginia and Pennsylvania law, arising out of
the kidnaping, imprisonment, and torture
of the crew members.

CONCLUSION

Holdings: Following entry of default, the
District Court, Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., J.,
held that:

For the reasons stated above, the Court
will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss.
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

,

(1) former crew members were entitled to
recover in claims for assault and battery under California, Illinois, Virginia
and Pennsylvania law;
(2) former crew members were entitled to
recover in claims for false imprisonment under California, Illinois, Virginia
and Pennsylvania law;
(3) wife of deceased captain was entitled
to damages for loss of solatium;

10. Given the Court’s conclusion that plaintiff
failed to contact an EEO counselor in a timely
fashion, it need not address defendant’s argument that she is entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff was not similarly situ-

ated to Ms. Ayres given the difference in work
assignments and the fact that Ayres had 33
years of experience with the DOL as compared to plaintiff’s five years. (Def.’s Mot. at
24.)

Select target paragraph3