Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Brown v. Berrein - SUE EEOC

    Uploaded by

    me
    This document is a memorandum opinion from a civil case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, Randy Brown, alleged that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) erred in dismissing his discrimination charge as untimely without considering his cognitive disability. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that there is no express or implied cause of action against the EEOC for alleged malfeasance in processing discrimination charges. The court also found no cause of action against the EEOC chairperson arising from the handling of the plaintiff's charge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Brown v. Berrein - SUE EEOC

    Uploaded by

    me
    26 views2 pages
    This document is a memorandum opinion from a civil case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, Randy Brown, alleged that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) erred in dismissing his discrimination charge as untimely without considering his cognitive disability. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that there is no express or implied cause of action against the EEOC for alleged malfeasance in processing discrimination charges. The court also found no cause of action against the EEOC chairperson arising from the handling of the plaintiff's charge.

    Original Title

    Brown v. Berrein_SUE EEOC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a memorandum opinion from a civil case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, Randy Brown, alleged that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) erred in dismissing his discrimination charge as untimely without considering his cognitive disability. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that there is no express or implied cause of action against the EEOC for alleged malfeasance in processing discrimination charges. The court also found no cause of action against the EEOC chairperson arising from the handling of the plaintiff's charge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    26 views2 pages

    Brown v. Berrein - SUE EEOC

    Uploaded by

    me
    This document is a memorandum opinion from a civil case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, Randy Brown, alleged that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) erred in dismissing his discrimination charge as untimely without considering his cognitive disability. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that there is no express or implied cause of action against the EEOC for alleged malfeasance in processing discrimination charges. The court also found no cause of action against the EEOC chairperson arising from the handling of the plaintiff's charge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Civil Action No.

    13 0151
    United States District Court, District of Columbia.

    Brown v. Berrein
    923 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2013)
    Decided Feb 5, 2013

    Civil Action No. 13 0151.

    2013-02-5

    Randy BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Jacqueline A. BERREIN, Chairperson, Equal Employment Opportunity


    Commission, Defendant.

    ROSEMARY M. COLLYER

    Randy Brown, Washington, DC, pro se.

    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.

    This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and
    pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.

    Plaintiff alleges that he sustained a head injury in February 2009 which exacerbated a preexisting cognitive
    disability. Compl. at 1. He attributes these injuries and their effects on his judgment and motor speed, as the
    causes for his failure to file his charge of discrimination within the 300–day limitations period. See id. at 2.
    Plaintiff claims that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission erred by summarily dismissing his charge
    of discrimination as untimely without taking his disability into account. Id.

    “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, 118 S.Ct. 386, 139 L.Ed.2d 302
    (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
    44 against the EEOC to challenge its investigation and processing of a charge.”); *44 Ward v. Equal Employment
    Opportunity Comm'n, 719 F.2d 311, 313 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied,466 U.S. 953, 104 S.Ct. 2159, 80 L.Ed.2d
    544 (1984). Nor is there a cause of action against the Chairperson of the EEOC arising from her handling of
    plaintiff's charge of discrimination. See Caraveo v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 96
    Fed.Appx. 738, 740 (2d Cir.2004) (affirming dismissal of claim against EEOC and its employees sued in their
    official capacities for their alleged failure to adequately investigate charges of disability discrimination);
    Svenson v. Thomas, 607 F.Supp. 1004, 1006 (D.D.C.1985) (concluding that the EEOC's Chairman was not

    1
    Brown v. Berrein 923 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2013)

    amenable to suit under Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because there is no cause of
    action against the EEOC arising from its investigation or processing of a charge). The Court will therefore
    dismiss the instant complaint for its failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See28 U.S.C. §
    1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy