179 F. Supp. 3d 92
D.D.C.2016Background
- McCall filed an EEOC discrimination complaint against the USPS in August 2008.
- EEOC administrative judge issued a decision on May 25, 2010.
- USPS failed to issue a final agency action within 40 days as required by 29 C.F.R. §1614.110(a).
- Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the EEOC’s OFO in September 2012; appeal denied in 2014.
- Plaintiff asserts APA and Title VII challenges to the EEOC’s handling of her case.
- Court grants the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but finds subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims | McCall relies on APA/1331 for jurisdiction | Yang contends no valid APA/Title VII jurisdiction for EEOC processing | Jurisdiction under 1331 exists for claims properly raised under Title VII or APA |
| Whether APA allows review of EEOC processing of discrimination claims | APA permits review of final agency action with no adequate remedy | processing decisions are not final agency actions and there is an adequate court remedy | APA does not provide a remedy for EEOC processing of claims; claim dismissed |
| Whether Title VII provides a remedy against EEOC processing | Title VII could support a challenge to EEOC processing upon failure to enforce proper processing | No Title VII cause of action against the EEOC for processing of a complaint | Title VII does not support a claim against the EEOC for processing disputes; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (subject-matter jurisdiction confirmed; dismissal if no jurisdiction)
- Moms Against Mercury v. FDA, 483 F.3d 824 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (court skepticism toward broad APA challenges to agency actions)
- Ralls Corp. v. CFIUS, 758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (jurisdictional review framework; 12(b)(1) standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards require plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (naked allegations not enough; plausibility required)
- Smith v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (no Title VII remedy against EEOC for processing claims)
- Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.2d 311 (9th Cir. 1983) (adequate court remedies foreclose APA challenge to EEOC processing)
- Stewart v. EEOC, 611 F.2d 679 (7th Cir. 1979) (adequate remedy in court; APA challenge barred)
- Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (APA is not a jurisdictional grant; limits on review)
- Center for Auto Safety v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 452 F.3d 798 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (final agency action review under APA requires finality)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (finality and legal consequences in APA review)