Three EEOC charges, an "international vacation," and a "specialist" he says wasn't licensed
A federal judge refused to toss a lawsuit by a worker who says the law firm he hired let his discrimination case lapse.
The ruling, issued July 29, 2026, kept the case alive after the firm asked the court to throw it out. For HR teams and the employment lawyers who advise them, it is a blunt reminder of how unforgiving Title VII's filing clock can be - and how fast a strong-looking claim can die on the calendar.
According to the opinion, the worker - an African American case manager at the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services (DC DHS) - had spent years raising what he described as racial discrimination, retaliation and harassment. He filed several charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). One produced a right-to-sue letter in September 2022, with a deadline "of approximately December 25, 2022."
In January 2023, he paid the firm $3,800 and signed a retainer. He says the lead attorney verbally promised to "file lawsuits against DC DHS for discriminatory conduct" and to "remedy the missed December 2022 deadline," even though the written agreement covered only "document review."
The attorney then "coached" him to file a second EEOC charge "to obtain a new Right to Sue letter," the complaint says. A second letter arrived in February or March 2024, but no suit followed. When he asked why, the firm "blamed" him, saying his "case file was not formatted properly." He was then "persuaded" to file a third charge.
Before a third deadline in November 2024, the attorney said he was "taking an international vacation" but would "fix everything" on his return, according to the filing. He also introduced the worker to a colleague described as an "Employment Attorney Specialist" - someone the worker says he could not find in any bar's records. That deadline passed too, with no lawsuit filed.
Representing himself, the worker sued in December 2025 for legal malpractice, breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The firm moved to dismiss, arguing the underlying claims were too weak and too late.
The judge disagreed. To keep a malpractice claim alive, a client must show he had a "meritorious" claim he lost. The court found he plausibly had, pointing to denied overtime and promotions and records like "performance evaluations showing disparate treatment." The fraud claims survived as well.
The court decided only that the claims can proceed. It made no finding that the firm did anything wrong, and the allegations remain untested.
