Crowder v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 374 F. Supp. 3d 539

Background

Crowder, a North Carolina magistrate and then Chief Magistrate (1993–2016), alleged she was not renominated after testifying in an EEOC/GERA administrative proceeding concerning another magistrate (Myrick) who sought a religious accommodation to avoid performing same-sex marriages.
Myrick resigned, filed a charge with the EEOC under the Government Employee Rights Act (GERA); an ALJ found discrimination by NCAOC and judges; Crowder testified during that investigation and claims her testimony led to retaliation (failure to renominate).
Crowder sued in federal district court under Title VII against NCAOC, Judges Gwyn and Bragg, Rowell, and the EEOC, seeking declaratory relief and alleging retaliation and discrimination.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; the EEOC separately moved to dismiss Crowder’s declaratory-judgment claim against it.
The court held that North Carolina magistrates are “appointees on the policy-making level,” so Title VII does not apply; GERA governs Crowder’s claims, requiring administrative proceedings at the EEOC and review in the federal courts of appeals.
The court dismissed Crowder’s Title VII claims (and her declaratory claim against the EEOC) without prejudice and noted equitable-tolling remedies under GERA and EEOC regulations for Crowder to pursue relief administratively and, if necessary, in the Fourth Circuit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a declaratory-judgment claim against the EEOC	Crowder sought declaratory relief challenging EEOC processing and relied on federal statutes to confer jurisdiction	EEOC: no private cause of action exists to challenge EEOC charge-processing; Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent jurisdictional basis	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; no federal question supports declaratory relief against EEOC
Whether Title VII governs Crowder’s claim or GERA controls	Crowder sued under Title VII after receiving a right-to-sue letter	Defendants: magistrates are appointees on the policy-making level, excluded from Title VII; GERA applies	Court held GERA controls; Title VII does not apply to magistrates; dismissed Title VII claims
Whether Crowder, as a magistrate, is an "appointee on the policy-making level" excluded from Title VII	Crowder disputed that the appointee exclusion barred her Title VII claim	Defendants relied on state law duties and federal precedent showing magistrates exercise discretionary public functions warranting the exclusion	Court found magistrates exercise discretion on matters of public importance and are excluded from Title VII; dismissal for failure to state a claim
Whether equitable tolling or other relief allows Crowder to pursue GERA remedies after EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter	Crowder argued EEOC’s initial characterization forced filing in district court to preserve rights	Defendants noted GERA’s administrative-review scheme and EEOC procedures	Court noted courts and EEOC regulations permit equitable tolling; encouraged Crowder to seek administrative relief under GERA and appeal to the Fourth Circuit if necessary

Key Cases Cited

Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in Fourth Circuit)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing merits)
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937) (definition of an "actual controversy" for declaratory relief)
Volvo Constr. Equip. N. Am., Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., 386 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2004) (Declaratory Judgment Act creates remedy, not jurisdiction; three-part test for declaratory relief)
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) (analysis of appointee exclusions and when statutory exemptions apply to policymakers)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (distinguishing dismissal for lack of jurisdiction from dismissal for failure to state a claim)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applying plausibility standard and limits on conclusory allegations)
Brazoria Cty. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, 391 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2004) (GERA administrative scheme; review in courts of appeals)