UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

BARBARA JEAN KONE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

Civil Action No. 11-0054 (RJL) 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et aI., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

----------------------------~) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on the District of Columbia's motion to dismiss. For the 

reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted. 

1. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her age by 

terminating her employment as a special education teacher with the District of Columbia Public 

Schools ("DCPS") effective August 1, 2008. 1 See CompI. at 1. She filed a formal charge of 

It appears that plaintiff was terminated because she did not obtain the proper 

license. DCPS submitted the following statement to the EEOC: 

Ms. Kone's termination was based solely on her failure to attain her teacher 

licensure. Despite being repeatedly advised of the need to attain a teacher license 

Ms. Kone failed to meet all necessary requirements and still had not earned a passing 

score ... on the Praxis I Math examination at the time of her termination. While 

DCPS acknowledges that Ms. Kone attempted on at least four occasions to pass the 

Praxis I Math examination, under the federal No Child Left Behind legislation, DCPS 

is required to ensure that all of its teachers are certified and highly qualified to teach. 

* * * 

(continued ... ) 

1 
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), and on 

September 21,2010, the EEOC issued its right-to-sue letter. Compl., Ex. (Dismissal and Notice 

of Rights, EEOC Charge No. 570-2008-02337, dated September 21,2010). 

Plaintiff brings this action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 

see 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34, and she demands "lost wages, back pay, benefits restoration, the value 

of health benefits for retirement, severance pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages due to 

pain and suffering[,] personnel file correction, attorney fees and court costs." CompI. at 2. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Plaintiff's Complaint Was Timely Filed 

In relevant part, the ADEA provides: 

If a charge filed with the [EEOC] ... is dismissed or the proceedings 

ofthe [EEOC] are otherwise terminated by the [EEOC], the [EEOC] 

shall notify the person aggrieved. A civil action may be brought 

under this section by a person ... against the respondent named in the 

charge within 90 days after the date of the receipt of such notice. 

29 U.S.C. § 626(e) (emphasis added). It is generally presumed that a person receives her copy of 

the EEOC's notice within three days of its issuance. See Baldwin Cly. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 

466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1 (1984) (applying the presumptive three-day allowance set forth in FED. R. 

\ ... continued) 

Ms. Kone did not meet all of [the] requirements. [She] received no fewer than five 

(5) letters reminding her of the teacher licensure requirement, that her continued 

employment was contingent upon complying with this requirement and that failure 

to comply would result in termination. All teachers who failed to satisfy the 

licensure requirement received these letters, regardless of their age. As a result of her 

failure to comply, Ms. Kone was notified on July 22, 2008 that she would be 

terminated effective August 1, 2008. 

Compl., Ex. (Position Statement, EEOC Charge No. 570-2008-02337) ~ 2 (internal citations 

omitted). 

2 
CIv. P. 6(e) for receipt of filings by mail); Coleman v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 310 F. Supp. 2d 

154, 158 (D.D.C. 2004). Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is 

untimely. See Mem. ofP. & A. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Def.'s Mem.") at 3. 

According to defendant, "[a]fter applying the presumptive three days allowed for receipt by mail, 

plaintiff filed her complaint on the one hundred and seventh day i.e. seventeen days after the days 

allowed." Id. 

Review of the Court's docket reveals that the Clerk of Court received plaintiff s 

complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis on December 23,2010,2 that the Court 

approved plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis on January 5, 2011, and that the 

Clerk of Court officially filed these documents on January 10, 2011. Plaintiff is not responsible 

for the delay between the date the Clerk of Court received her complaint and the date on which 

the Clerk officially enters the complaint on the Court's electronic docket. See Guillen v. Nat 'I 

Grange, 955 F.Supp. 144, 145 (D.D.C. 1997) (finding a Title VII litigant "not responsible for the 

administrative delay associated with the Court's review of petitions to proceed informa pauperis 

. . .. [T]he presentation of a complaint [and] a petition to proceed in forma pauperis tolls the 

ninety-day period of limitations .... ") (citations omitted). Assuming that plaintiff received the 

right-to-sue notice on September 24,2010, three days after its issuance, the last day on which she 

could submit her complaint to the Clerk of Court would have been ninety days later, on 

December 23, 2010. The Court concludes that plaintiffs complaint was timely filed. See Stone 

v. Landis Const. Corp., 733 F. Supp. 2d 148, 151 (D.D.C. 2010) (denying motion to dismiss Title 

2 It is the Clerk's practice to date stamp the first page of a pro se plaintiff s 

complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis upon receipt of the original papers. 

3 
VII and ADEA claims where the complaint was received five days before expiration of90-day 

filing period calculated from the first date on which Clerk of Court received the complaint). 

B. Plaintiff Concedes Defendant's Remaining Arguments 

Under Local Civil Rule 7(b), if a party fails to file a memorandum of points and 

authorities in opposition to a dispositive motion by the deadline set by the Court, "the Court may 

treat the motion as conceded." LCvR 7(b). "[A]n argument in a dispositive motion that the 

opponent fails to address in an opposition may be deemed conceded." Rosenblatt v. Fenty, 734 

F. Supp. 2d 21, 22 (D.D.C. 2010)( citing Bonaccorsy v. District of Columbia, 685 F. Supp. 2d 

18,24 (D.D.C. 2010)) (other citations omitted); Hopkins v. Women's Div., Gen. Bd. of Global 

Ministries, 238 F. Supp. 2d 174, 178 (D.D.C. 2002) ("It is well understood in this Circuit that 

when a plaintiff files an opposition to a motion to dismiss addressing only certain arguments 

raised by the defendant, a court may treat those arguments that the plaintiff failed to address as 

conceded.") ( citations omitted). 

Defendant argues that the exclusive remedy for any claim regarding plaintiffs retirement 

falls under the District's Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act ("CMPA"), see D.C. Code § 1-

601.01 et seq., rather than a lawsuit in federal district court. See Def.' s Mem. at 4. In addition, 

defendant asserts that plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements, see D.C. 

Code § 12-309, prior to seeking damages for any loss of retirement benefits. See Def.'s Mem. at 

5-6. Plaintiffs opposition, although timely filed, addresses neither of the arguments defendant 

raised. The Court will treat defendant's two remaining arguments for dismissal as conceded. See 

Hoffman v. District of Columbia, 681 F. Supp. 2d 86, 94 (D.D.C. 2010) (granting as conceded 

the District's motion to dismiss because plaintiff failed to respond to its arguments for dismissal 

4 
of plaintiffs' claims against it); see also Cummings ex reI. Jc. v. Woodson Senior High Sch., 563 

F. Supp. 2d 256,259 (D.D.C. 2008) ("The brief [plaintiff's counsel] filed ... is filled with 

irrelevant legal principles and citations ... , and does not address the substance of defendants' 

arguments as to why plaintiff's claims under the IDEA should be dismissed. As a result, the 

Court will dismiss plaintiff's IDEA claims."). 

III. CONCLUSION 

The Court finds that plaintiff timely filed her complaint. The complaint must be 

dismissed, however, because plaintiff has conceded the remaining arguments set forth in 

defendant's dispositive motion. The Court will grant defendant's motion and will dismiss this 

action. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

r;Z' 

United 

:ICH~ States District Judge 

5