ANTHONY J. CARROLL, Plaintiff,
DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY, Defendant.
MATTHEW S. WOLF, ESQUIRE, LLC, By: Mathew S. Wolf, Esq., Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Counsel for Plaintiff.
DEASEY, MAHONEY, VALENTINI, & NORTH LTD By: Carla P. Maresca, Esq., Haddonfield, New Jersey, Counsel for Defendant.
JOSEPH E. IRENAS, Senior District Judge.
This is an employment discrimination suit pursuant to the Uniformed Services and Reemployment Rights Act, "USERRA, " 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Anthony Carroll asserts that his employer, Defendant Delaware River Port Authority ("DRPA"), denied him an opportunity to apply for a promotion in 2003, and passed him over for promotions in 2010 and 2012, on account of his military service. DRPA moves to dismiss as time-barred the claim based on the 2003 incident. The Court concludes that the applicable four-year statute of limitations bars the 2003 claim. Accordingly, DRPA's Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
With respect to the claim at issue, the Amended Complaint alleges the following.
Carroll has been employed by the DRPA as a police officer since 1989. During all relevant times, Carroll was also a member of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.
In "early 2003, " while Carroll was on active military duty, DRPA administered a written examination which "was a necessary prerequisite to becoming qualified for" a sergeant position which had recently become available. (Amend. Compl. ¶ 18) DRPA would not allow Carroll to take the exam at the military education center where Carroll was stationed. Someone at DRPA allegedly told Carroll "you cannot sit for the exam because you are in the military on active duty, ' or words to that effect." ( Id. ¶ 19) Carroll asserts that he was otherwise qualified for the sergeant position, and that he would have been promoted "but for [the] denial of his taking the sergeant's examination." ( Id. ¶ 27)
As stated previously, DRPA moves to dismiss this claim, arguing that it is time-barred.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." If a claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the Court cannot grant relief, and dismissal is appropriate. See, e.g., Pension Trust Fund for Operating Eng'rs v. Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc., 730 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2013).
Before reaching the core statute of limitations analysis, the Court addresses two other arguments Carroll ...