Opinion ID: 167403
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The ALJ Dismissed Petitioner's Administrative Complaint as Untimely

Text: 11 On October 3, 2003, the ALJ dismissed the complaint as untimely filed. Admin. R., Doc. 17, Ex. C. The ALJ used a three-part test for equitable tolling taken from cases from the Second and Third Circuits. That test allows 12 a court to apply equitable tolling under three conditions: (1) [when] the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the cause of action; [(2)] [when] the plaintiff has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his rights, or [(3)] [when] the plaintiff has raised the precise statutory claim in issue but has mistakenly done so in the wrong forum. 13 Id. at 2 (citing Sch. Dist. of Allentown v. Marshall, 657 F.2d 16, 19-20 (3d Cir.1981) (quoting Smith v. Am. President Lines, Ltd., 571 F.2d 102, 109 (2d Cir.1978) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added))). The ALJ added that there are two corollaries to the third condition: (3a) the claim filed in the wrong forum must have been filed within the time limits that would have applied had the complaint been filed in the correct forum[,] and (3b) the plaintiff must have used the same statutory foundation when filing both the original claim and the subsequently filed claim. Id. 14 The ALJ considered only the third condition under which he believed equitable tolling could apply (and it is apparent that the first and second conditions do not help petitioner, anyway). 2 Id. The ALJ noted that the district court had held that petitioner's state retaliation complaint was preempted by AIR21, verifying that the Complainant had filed his complaint in the wrong forum. Id. (emphasis added). But the ALJ held that while petitioner's state complaint was filed within AIR21's statute of limitations, it was not made under the same statute and it was insufficient that the underlying facts were the same. See id. at 2-3. Petitioner pointed out to the ALJ that another ALJ had applied equitable tolling in another case in essentially the same posture. See Pet'r Br. at 6 n. 2; Admin. R., Doc. 17, Ex. E. The ALJ said that he disagreed with that other decision as being contrary to the weight of the law. Admin. R., Doc. 17, Ex. C at 3 n. 2. 15