Pugh v. Montgomery County Board of Education
8:13-cv-02862
| D. Maryland | Jun 30, 2014Background
- Plaintiff, pro se African-American female, is a paraeducator employed by MCPS and seeks relief under Title VII.
- Plaintiff alleges MCPS denied provisional teaching employment in Nov. 2008, despite qualifications, possibly due to race.
- Plaintiff filed EEOC charges on Mar. 3, 2010 and received a right-to-sue letter on Jul. 1, 2013.
- Plaintiff filed the current complaint on Sep. 27, 2013 asserting Title VII discrimination against MCPS and due process/Title VII claims against the EEOC.
- MCPS moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction/insufficient process and service; EEOC moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.
- The court granted MCPS’s motion as a quash of service and granted the EEOC’s motion to dismiss, with a separate order to follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCPS is a proper defendant and subject to service | MCPS misnamed; substitute the Montgomery County Board of Education | MCPS not a proper legal entity; service improper | MCPS’s motion to dismiss treated as a motion to quash; service deficient; leave to re-serve to the Montgomery County Board of Education |
| Whether service of process upon MCPS complied with Rule 4 | Plaintiff followed Rule 4 and used the attorney connected with MCPS | Actual authority to accept service not established; service ineffective | Service insufficient; alternative relief granted to permit proper service |
| Whether the EEOC bears subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims | EEOC allegedly violated due process and mishandled Title VII claims | Title VII does not authorize a suit against the EEOC for its processing of charges; due process claims fail | EEOC’s motion to dismiss granted; claims against EEOC dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (no cause of action against EEOC for negligent processing of charges)
- Holsey v. Kiel, 2013 WL 1337691 (D.Md. 2013) (due process not violated by EEOC actions; remedy lies against employer)
- Georator Corp. v. EEOC, 592 F.2d 765 (4th Cir. 1979) (due process remedy exists via de novo review, not against EEOC)
- Frederick v. Koziol, 727 F.Supp. 1019 (E.D. Va. 1990) (motion for more definite statement should not substitute for discovery)
- Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25 (3d Cir. 1992) (opportunity to cure service defects; retain case on docket)
- Vorhees v. Fischer & Krecke, 697 F.2d 574 (4th Cir. 1983) (service of process; alternatives to dismissal when service is initially ineffective)
- Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Bldg. Sys., Inc., 733 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1984) (local government service methods and effect of service on jurisdiction)
- O’Meara v. Waters, 464 F.Supp.2d 474 (D.Md. 2006) (liberal construction of service; Rule 4 liberality generally upheld)
- Jordan v. Summers, 205 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2000) (practice: proper course when plaintiff seeks relief against EEOC mishandling)