882 F. Supp. 2d 88
D.D.C.2012Background
- Jordan, a Black female, sues CSOSA officials and a MPD officer in a federal action for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief under Title VII and other civil rights statutes.
- Plaintiff alleges race discrimination and related harassment during and after CSOSA employment starting in 2000, including a termination during probation in 2001.
- Defendants move to dismiss, arguing the proper Title VII defendant is the current CSOSA Director and that claims are time-barred and legally frivolous.
- EEOC/ALJ proceedings in 2000-2003 found no genuine dispute over plaintiff’s termination due to performance deficiencies; CSOSA issued a final determination in 2003.
- Jordan has filed previous and current suits against CSOSA personnel; some actions were dismissed for lack of prosecution or improper joinder; others remain pending.
- The court grants the motion to dismiss, concluding lack of jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and failure to state a claim warrant dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII claims against Quander, Ormand, Shaffer in their individual capacities survive. | Jordan asserts race discrimination under Title VII against individual defendants. | Defendants argue only the current CSOSA Director may be sued under Title VII; individuals lack liability. | Dismissed; claims against individuals in their official capacities are not proper under Title VII. |
| Whether Title VII claims are time-barred under the 90-day limitations period. | Plaintiff maintains timely filing within 90 days of final agency action. | Plaintiff filed well after the 90-day window and neglected tolling arguments. | Time-barred; claims must be dismissed. |
| Whether plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process claim survives. | Plaintiff claims a property interest in employment and due process violations upon termination. | No cognizable property interest or due process violation shown; vague, unsupported allegations. | Dismissed; no protected liberty or property interest shown; due process claim failed. |
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims and whether sovereign immunity applies. | Plaintiff seeks monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CSOSA and officials. | CSOSA is immune from suit for money damages; § 1983 does not apply to federal officials or agencies. | Grants sovereign immunity; dismisses the action for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Janey, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (no individual liability under Title VII; agency head only)
- Bourdon v. Mabus, 813 F. Supp. 2d 200 (D.D.C. 2011) (sovereign immunity bars monetary claims against federal agencies)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (jurisdictional limits; standing requirements)
- Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional dismissal for frivolous federal claims)
- Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (lack of jurisdiction for frivolous conspiracy-like claims)