a year later. Nevertheless, as the district court recognized, “in [] rare and exceptional circumstance[s], in which a party is prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising [her] rights,” equity can toll the 300-day filing limitation. Zerilli-Edelglass v. New York City Trans. Auth., 333 F.3d 74, 80 (2d Cir.2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (first and second alterations in original); see Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 113. Sinha argued that she was entitled to equitable tolling because an EEOC investigator misled her about the operation of the 300-day filing period, advising her to contact the EEOC only after the conclusion of her grievance proceeding against DOE. See Carlyle Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. FDIC, 170 F.3d 301, 310 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. Al Tech Specialties Steel Corp.,
holding time limitation on statement of costs is not jurisdictional and late filing is within courts discretion holding that plaintiffs who received fraudulent tax advice and acted in reliance on the advice though only alleging a future risk of being assessed penalties for acting on the advice had alleged an injuiyinfact holding that in chapter 13 cases irs cannot be excused on account of its size from its obligations as a creditor recognizing that partys late filing might be excused if based on inaccurate advice from government official recognizing incompetent advice from attorney as proper ground for federal habeas attack on voluntariness of guilty plea in state court