497 F. App'x 223
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Gary, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals dismissals of his complaint with prejudice.
- Gary worked for Holiday Inn as a chamber maid/houseman and was discharged in March 2009.
- He initially was denied unemployment benefits due to Holiday Inn failing to report part of his earnings.
- Gary filed a PHRC charge of employment discrimination; PHRC and EEOC investigated with multiple staff involved.
- Gary alleges delays and conspiratorial conduct by PHRC staff; in August 2009 the charge was sent to the EEOC for dual filing.
- Gary filed this federal action in June 2010 seeking injunctive and equitable relief under civil rights statutes and state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction over PHRC and EEOC claims | Gary asserts federal claims against agencies and officials. | PHRC and EEOC enjoy sovereign immunity; district court lacked jurisdiction. | Affirmed; district court lacked jurisdiction over PHRC and EEOC claims. |
| Plausibility of §1981 claim against PHRC | PHRC defendants discriminated against Gary on account of race in processing his claim. | No plausible facts of intentional discrimination beyond conclusory statements. | Dismissed; no plausible §1981 claim against PHRC. |
| Validity of §1985/§1986 conspiracy claim | PHRC employees conspired to hinder relief based on race. | Conspiracy claim is conclusory and lacks factual support. | Dismissed; conspiracy claim insufficient to state a claim. |
| Claims against EEOC and FTCA/Bivens viability | EEOC mishandled his charge; seeks relief under Bivens and FTCA. | Sovereign immunity bars FTCA and Bivens claims; no colorable federal claim against District Director. | Dismissed; lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a plausible claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard requires more than mere allegations)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain plausible claims, not just formulaic recitations)
- Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1991) (dismissals should not rest solely on unopposed motions without merit analysis)
- Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142 (3d Cir. 1990) ( Poulis factors require analysis before dismissal as a sanction)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (requires balancing factors for dismissal as a sanction)
- Hood v. N.J. Dep't of Civil Serv., 680 F.2d 955 (3d Cir. 1982) (elements of §1981 require intentional discrimination proof)