DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
On February 6, 2003, Hearing Office Curtis E. von Kann issued the attached Order dismissing this disability discrimination and reprisal complaint on the basis that it was untimely and, therefore, he was without jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The Complainant timely filed a petition for review of the Hearing Officer’s decision and a supporting brief. The Respondent employing office filed a brief in opposition to the petition for review.
Upon due consideration of the Hearing Officer’s Order, and the parties’ filings, the Board has decided to affirm the dismissal Order but for the reasons explained below.
Complainant alleges herein that he did not prevail in earlier companion discrimination lawsuits (circa 1999-2001) against the Respondent because the Respondent had discriminatorily misrepresented important facts and law to both the federal trial and appellate courts. Complainant, in essence, is seeking the relief he would have received had he succeeded before those courts.
The Hearing Officer concluded that he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the Complainant had not complied with the 180-day time limitation imposed by Section 402(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. § 1402(a). Contrary to the Hearing Officer, we note that the 180-day time limitation is in the nature of a statute of limitations rather than a jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, it is subject to equitable tolling, but only in extraordinary and carefully circumscribed instances. See, Clarence Seay, Jr. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, et al., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16022 (6th Cir. 08/06/2003); Monday v. Secretary of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Charles A. Hughes, III v. The Office of the United States Sergeant- at- Arms, Office of Compliance Case No. 98-SN-56 (RP) (September 8, 1999); Kenneth F. Thompson v. The Capitol Police Board, 120 F. Supp. 2d 78 (2000); Gloria Halcomb v. Office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, 209 F. Supp.2d 175 (2002).
