O'Briant v. Rhodes, 1:17-cv-01050

Background

Phillip O'Briant, pro se, originally sued his former employer in July 2016 for employment discrimination; the court dismissed that complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust EEOC/HRC administrative remedies.
After the dismissal he filed an EEOC charge; the EEOC investigator (Carol M. Glace) and director (Rosemarie Rhodes) closed the charge on September 28, 2016, finding no federal statutory violation and provided a 90-day Notice of Suit Rights.
O'Briant communicated repeatedly with EEOC staff (including Monica Jackson) seeking investigation materials and reconsideration, alleging hostile treatment and inadequate investigation; reconsideration was denied on December 22, 2016.
Instead of filing suit against his employer within 90 days, O'Briant filed this action against EEOC employees alleging due process and equal protection violations and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.
He sought in forma pauperis status; the court granted IFP but screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and evaluated subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The court concluded Title VII does not authorize suits against the EEOC for how it processed third-party discrimination charges and held that O'Briant’s constitutional claims (due process/equal protection) were deficient as a matter of law and subject to dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title VII provides jurisdiction to sue EEOC employees for mishandling an employer discrimination investigation	O'Briant contends EEOC employees mishandled his charge and thus are liable	Title VII does not create a cause of action against the EEOC or its employees for failing to investigate a third-party employer	Court: Title VII does not provide jurisdiction to sue EEOC for its processing of a third-party charge; claim dismissed
Whether the EEOC’s denial of relief violated procedural due process	O'Briant asserts denial and alleged procedural shortcomings deprived him of life/liberty without due process	Defendants imply agency process and availability of judicial review satisfy due process	Court: Denial by EEOC does not amount to a constitutional due process deprivation; claim fails
Whether EEOC conduct violated equal protection by treating O'Briant differently	O'Briant alleges discriminatory treatment by agency personnel	Defendants note plaintiff does not plead disparate treatment compared to similarly situated complainants	Court: No allegations showing differential treatment; equal protection claim dismissed
Whether individual-capacity Bivens relief is available for EEOC employees	O'Briant seeks damages and injunctive relief against employees individually	Defendants implicitly rely on Bivens limits and absence of constitutional violation	Court: No need for Bivens analysis because complaint fails to allege an actionable constitutional violation; summary dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (standard of liberal construction for pro se pleadings)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standards)
Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (court should not conjure issues not presented)
White v. White, 886 F.2d 721 (treatment of pro se pleadings)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (federal courts’ limited jurisdiction)
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (court’s independent obligation to assess subject-matter jurisdiction)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (presumption that a case lies outside limited jurisdiction)
Baba v. Japan Travel Bureau Int'l, Inc., 111 F.3d 2 (Title VII does not create a cause of action against the EEOC for mishandling charges)
Georator Corp. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, 592 F.2d 765 (availability of judicial review satisfies due process regarding preliminary agency action)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (framework for individual-capacity damages claims against federal officers)