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.)

대상 단락 선택3