and delays in OHR proceedings supposedly attributable to Latham by virtue of its status as a large law firm.. Opp’n at 5: Ms. Peart’s lack of legal representation or a job is not grounds for tolling. See Ferguson v. Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union, 626 F.Supp.2d 55, 61 n. 2 (D.D.C.2009) (“Although it is true that courts lib erally construe pro se filings, a case in which a plaintiff fails to meet a statutory deadline but attributes it to her pro se status is not one in which a court should toll the statute of limitations.” (internal citation omitted)). Likewise, there is no basis in law or reason for applying either equity doctrine to this matter merely because Latham mounted a defense before OHR or because the agency proceedings were slow. See Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 453 (<HOLDING>); Hunt v. Georgia Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, 490
recognizing appropriateness of tolling where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversarys misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass holding that equitable tolling of a statute of limitations may be triggered 1 where a plaintiff has actively pursued his judicial remedies by a filing a defective pleading during the statutory period or 2 where a plaintiff was induced or tricked by his adversarys misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass holding that the 180day filing deadline is jurisdictional and mandatory holding that in this context the filing deadline is tantamount to a statute of limitations recognizing equitable tolling in the title vii context where the plaintiff has been deceived lulled into inaction actively misled or has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his or her rights quotations and citations omitted