From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hatter v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.
May 19, 2015
105 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2015)

Summary

concluding that "if the one-year statute of limitations under the DCHRA applies, so does the Act's tolling provisions."

Summary of this case from Pappas v. Dist. of Columbia

Opinion

Civil Action No. 14–cv–1470 (TSC)

05-19-2015

Corwyn W. Hatter, Plaintiff, v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Defendant.

Morris Eli Fischer, Morris E. Fischer, LLC, Silver Spring, MD, for Plaintiff. Gerard Joseph Stief, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC, for Defendant.


Morris Eli Fischer, Morris E. Fischer, LLC, Silver Spring, MD, for Plaintiff.

Gerard Joseph Stief, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION


Summaries of

Hatter v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.
May 19, 2015
105 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2015)

concluding that "if the one-year statute of limitations under the DCHRA applies, so does the Act's tolling provisions."

Summary of this case from Pappas v. Dist. of Columbia

discussing division amongst the courts but accepting statute of limitations as one year, based on parties' agreement that the DCHRA was the most analogous state statute

Summary of this case from Owens-Hart v. Howard Univ.
Case details for

Hatter v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

Case Details

Full title:Corwyn W. Hatter, Plaintiff, v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit…

Court:United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Date published: May 19, 2015

Citations

105 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D.D.C. 2015)
31 A.D. Cas. 1614

Citing Cases

Pappas v. Dist. of Columbia

See e.g. , id. at 172 ("Given the similarity of purpose, rights, and remedies, the D.C. Human Rights Act is a…

Owens-Hart v. Howard Univ.

Neither the RA nor Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—to which the Rehabilitation Act directs the…