dismissing complaint against EEOC for having dismissed plaintiff’s charge of discrimination as untimely without taking disability into account
How later courts described this case
- dismissing complaint against EEOC for having dismissed plaintiff’s charge of discrimination as untimely without taking 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LAWRENCE HOUSTON HOBBS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-1076 (UNA)
)
MONTEZ STERLING COBB, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. 1 Generally, plaintiff alleges that the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to whom his
case was assigned deprived him of constitutionally-protected rights by, for example, delaying the
resolution of his employment discrimination claim and failing to rule on his motions for
sanctions against opposing counsel. See generally Compl. (ECF No. 1-2) ¶¶ 9-24.
All of plaintiff’s claims against the ALJ would have arisen in the course of administrative
proceedings on plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim, and defendant is protected by
absolute immunity. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512-13 (1978) (extending judicial
immunity to ALJs); Thomas v. Bernhardt, No. 1:19-CV-0157, 2020 WL 5504236, at *6 (W.D.
Ky. Sept. 11, 2020) (concluding that, because federal administrative judges are entitled to
absolute judicial immunity, claims against EEOC ALJ must be dismissed for failure to state a
1
Ordinarily, a plaintiff either must provide a residence address or file a motion for leave to use a
Post Office Box as his mailing address. See LCvR 5.1(c)(1). The Court waives this requirement
based on plaintiff’s representations that he resides in “an unincorporated rural area” in Comal
County, Texas, and maintains a Post Office Box as his official mailing address. Compl. ¶ 5.
claim upon which relief may be granted); Bozgoz v. James, No. 1:19-CV-0239, 2020 WL
4732085, at *16 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2020) (granting EEOC ALJ’s motion to dismiss because she
enjoyed absolute immunity from plaintiff’s claims arising from actions taken in her official
capacity).
Insofar as plaintiff brings a claim against the EEOC and its unidentified employees, the
claim fails. “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 disability into account).
The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 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)(ii). An order is issued separately.
DATE: May 6, 2022 2022.05.06
11:59:38 -04'00'
________________________
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
United States District Judge