Opinion

Smith v. Eeoc

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Jun 13, 2019
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge James E. Boasberg
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.9%

concluding that there is no cause of action for improper handling of a complaint by the EEO office of a federal agency, which provides a function analogous to the EEOC

How later courts described this case

  • concluding that there is no cause of action for improper handling of a complaint by the EEO office of a federal agency, which provides a function analogous to the EEOC
  • dismissing complaint against EEOC for having dismissed plaintiff's charge of discrimination as untimely without taking his disability into account
  • “It is settled law, in this and other circuits, that Title VII does not provide either an express or implied cause of action against the EEOC to challenge its investigation and processing of a charge.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 13 2019

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy

Courts for the District of Columbia

MATTHEW A. SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

Vv ) Civil Action No. 19-1347 (UNA)

)

EEOC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the plaintiff's application to proceed

in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. Generally, the plaintiff alleges that the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has failed to investigate his claims of

discrimination and has mishandled his cases. The Court will dismiss the complaint for its failure

to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi).

“Congress has not authorized, either expressly or impliedly, a cause of action against the

EEOC for the EEOC’s alleged negligence or other malfeasance in processing an employment

discrimination charge.” Smith v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied,

522 U.S. 958 (1997); McCottrell v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 726 F.2d 350, 351

(7th Cir. 1984) (“It is settled law, in this and other circuits, that Title VII does not provide either

an express or implied cause of action against the EEOC to challenge its investigation and

processing of a charge.”); Brown v. Berrein, 923 F. Supp. 2d 43, 43 (D.D.C. 2013) (dismissing

complaint against EEOC for having dismissed plaintiff's charge of discrimination as untimely

without taking his disability into account); see Koch v. White, 967 F. Supp. 2d 326, 336 (D.D.C.

2013) (concluding that there is no cause of action for improper handling of a complaint by the

EEO office of a federal agency, which provides a function analogous to the EEOC).

An order is issued separately.

ASE

h. :

wee IL Unitéd Spates District Judge

DATE: Jemary , 2019 Cos.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.