Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05015/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05015-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed July 25, 1997

No. 97-5015

MICHAEL SMITH,

APPELLANT

v.

GILBERT F. CASELLAS, CHAIRMAN,

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 96cv01777)

ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

Michael Smith, pro se.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, R. Craig 

Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorney, were on the 

motion for summary affirmance for appellee.

USCA Case #97-5015 Document #286535 Filed: 07/25/1997 Page 1 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: WALD, WILLIAMS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: Appellant Michael Smith filed suit against 

Gilbert Casellas in his official capacity as Chairman of the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), 

seeking $10.5 million in damages based on the EEOC's 

alleged negligence, fraud, and other impropriety in processing 

a discrimination charge Smith filed against his employer. 

The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted, without further 

elaboration. We affirm the district court's dismissal of the 

complaint and do so in a published opinion in order to join our 

sister circuits in holding that Congress has not authorized, 

either expressly or impliedly, a cause of action against the 

EEOC for the EEOC's alleged negligence or other malfeasance in processing an employment discrimination charge. 

See Baba v. Japan Travel Bureau Int'l, Inc., 111 F.3d 2, 4 (2d 

Cir. 1997); Scheerer v. Rose State College, 950 F.2d 661, 663 

(10th Cir. 1991); McCottrell v. EEOC, 726 F.2d 350, 351-52 

(7th Cir. 1984); Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.2d 311, 312-14 (9th 

Cir. 1983); Francis-Sobel v. University of Maine, 597 F.2d 

15, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1979); Gibson v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co.,

579 F.2d 890, 891 (5th Cir. 1978).

As the other circuits have noted, the legislative history of 

the 1972 amendments to Title VII reveals that Congress 

intended the private right of action provided for in section 

706(f)(1) of the Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1))under which 

an aggrieved employee may bring a Title VII action directly 

against his or her employerto serve as the remedy for any 

improper handling of a discrimination charge by the EEOC. 

See, e.g., Stewart v. EEOC, 611 F.2d 679, 681-82 (7th Cir. 

1979); Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.2d at 313-14; Baba v. Japan,

111 F.3d at 6. As aptly noted in Ward v. EEOC, "[to] 

imply[ ] a cause of action against the EEOC [would] contradict Title VII's policy of individual enforcement of equal 

employment opportunity laws and could dissipate the limited 

resources of the [EEOC] in fruitless litigation with charging 

parties." 719 F.2d at 313.

USCA Case #97-5015 Document #286535 Filed: 07/25/1997 Page 2 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Because no cause of action against the EEOC exists for 

challenges to its processing of a claim, the district court 

properly dismissed Smith's complaint for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the 

judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

USCA Case #97-5015 Document #286535 Filed: 07/25/1997 Page 3 of 3