finding that appellant “cannot state a claim under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Vienna Declaration because both are non-binding declarations that provide no private rights of action”
How later courts described this case
- finding that appellant “cannot state a claim under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Vienna Declaration because both are non-binding declarations that provide no private rights of action”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHAMIRA A. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-1720 (UNA)
)
BRIAN ELLIOTT BLACK et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Brown alleges that the defendants have violated the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights by violating her “right to work and pursue work in America.” Compl. at 3, Dkt.
1. According to Brown, the defendants “blacklisted” her from future employment with the
federal government for having pursued an employment discrimination claim. See id. Among
other relief, she demands “restitution of $750,000 for the six years [she has] been unemployed
and for various rejections . . . received from . . . federal agencies and private sector [employers]”
because Brown had filed an employment discrimination claim. Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s claim fails
because the Declaration does not provide for a private right of action. See Sosa v. Alvarez–
Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004) (“[T]he Declaration does not of its own force impose
obligations as a matter of international law.”); Vizi v. Outback Steakhouse, 672 F. App’x 168,
171 n.1 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (finding that “Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . . is
a nonbinding declaration that provides no private rights of action”); Konar v. Illinois, 327 F.
App’x 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2009) (finding that appellant “cannot state a claim under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights or the Vienna Declaration because both are non-binding
declarations that provide no private rights of action”); Perry v. Frederick, No. 22-CV-1973, 2022
WL 1810713, at *1 n.3 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2022) (recognizing Third Circuit’s ruling in United
1
States v. Chatman, 351 F. App’x 740, 741 (3d Cir. 2009), that “the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights is a non-binding declaration that provides no private rights of action”).
The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and, for the
reasons stated above, dismiss the complaint and this civil action. An Order is issued separately.
DATE: June 21, 2022 /s/
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH
United States District Judge
2