Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31179 Su m m ar y Cal endar

J E R O M E S M IT H , P la in tiff

–A p p e lla n t, v. ANT HONYJ

. P RI NCI P I , S EC RE T AR Y , DE P AR T M ENT OF V ET ER ANS A F F A IR S , D efen da n t–A pp el l ee .

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 1: 04- C V

- 55

B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Jerom e Sm i t h a pp eal s the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s d i sm i ssalof h i s com pl ai n tf i l ed pu rsuan tt o § 706(f

) o f t h e C ivi lR i gh t s A ctof 196 4 f or l ack of

subj ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on . B ecau se w e hol d th a t t h e di st ri ctcourtha d su bj ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on t o consi der t h e com pl ai n t , w e revers e t h e di sm i ssalan d rem an d f or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31179

See 4 2U .S .C

. § 2 0 0 0 e- 1 6 (c). 1 2 I S m i th w as an es c or tnurs i ng as si st antatt he Li t t l e Roc k, A r kansas V e te r a n s A ffa ir s fa c ility

. H e a lle g e s th a t t h e fa c ili t y r e ta lia te da g a in s t h im be c aus e he g av e a s t at e m e ntt o an ad m i ni s t r at ive i nve s t i ga t i o n bo ar d r e ga r di ng pat i entabus e a nd se xualhara ssm en t i n t he fac i l i t y. Sm i t h f i l ed a f or m al
c o m pl ai nto f

e m pl o ym e ntdi s c r i m i nat i o n wi t h t he D e pa r t m e nto f Vet e r ans A ffa i rs (VA) a n d req u ested a h ea ri n g b efore th e E q u a lE m p l oy m en t O p p ortu n i ty C om m i ss i on ( E E O C )

. The E E O C adm i ni st r at ive j udge (A J) c onc l uded t hat S m i t h w as d i scr i m i n ated aga i n stan d recom m en ded an aw ard of com pen sator y d a m a ge s, bu t t h e VArejectedthe A J ’ s reco m m en d a ti on an d S m i th a p p ea l ed to th e E E O C O ff

i ce of F ed era lO p era ti on s ( O F O ). T h e O F O d eterm i n ed tha t Sm i th
w as di s c r i m i nat e d a ga i n sta n d o r de r e d t he VAt o a w ar d Sm i t h da m ag e s . The VAa w ar de d Sm i t h $30 , 00 0, pay i ng bya c he c k t hatSm i t h s ubs e que nt l y c as he d. Sm i t h t he n a p p e a l e d t he am ount of t he a war dt o t he OFO , a ndt he OFO i nc r e as e d t he a w ar d t o $ 80 , 00 0. The VA i s s ue d a no t he rc he c k f o rt he r e m ai ni ng $5 0, 00 0 t o Sm i t h, w ho s ubs e que nt l y c as he d t he c he c k. Sm i t h t hen br oughtthi s ac t i on i n t he di st r i c tc our tpurs uant t o t he E qual O p p ortu n i ty E m p l oy m en t A ct o f 19 7 2 , w h i ch p erm i ts gov ern m en t em p l oy ee s to sue thei r em pl oyers un der T i t l e V II

. T h e VAf i l ed a m ot i on t o di sm i ss f or l ack 1 of j u ri sdi ct i on . Th e case w as assi gn ed to a m agis t rat e j u dg e, w h o rec om m en ded di sm i ssalof t h e com pl ai n t f or l ack of j u ri sdi ct i on . T h e m agis t rat e j u dg e noted t hatt he s t at ut e o nl y al l o w e d t w o t yp e s o f a ppe al s : t ho s e t o enf o r c e t he adm i ni st r at ive aw ar d and t hos e s ee ki ng de no vo r evi ew of t he adm i ni st r at ive deci si on . C on st rui n g S m i t h ’ s com pl ai n t t o on l y seek revi ew of t h e aw ard an d n ot de no v o r e v i e w o f t he f ul l a d m i ni s t r a t iv e d e c i s i o n, t he m a g i s t r a t e j udgeN o. 08- 31179

E.I . DuP ontde Nemo urs & Co. v. Sawyer , 5 1 7F .3 d 7 8 5 , 7 9 2( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8). 2 Massingill v. Nicholso n , 4 9 6F .3 d 3 8 2 , 3 8 4 -8 5( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 3 Id

. at38 5-86
. 4 Id

. at38 6. 5 Id

. 6 3 concl u ded t h at t h e courtl acked subj ectm att er ju risd ic t i on . Th e di st ri ctcourt ad o pt e d t he m ag i s t r at e ’ s r e c o m m e nda t i o n a nd Sm i t h s ubs e que nt l y ap pe al e d. II W e revi ew a di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i s s alf o rl ack of

subj ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on de n ovo. W e ha ve previ ou sl y h el d that a federal

- sect or em pl oyee sui n g u n der

2 Ti t l e V II cannotr e que s ta pa r t i alde no vo r e vi e w o f t he a ge nc y’ s de c i s i o n, b ut
m ay on ly se e k ei t h er a s u i tt o enfor ce t h e f i n aladm i n i st rat ive di sposi t i on or a de no vo r e vi e w o f

t he e nt i r e a gen cy de c i s i o n, i nc l udi ng bo t h l i ab i l i t y andt he
r em edy. H er e, Sm i t h does nots ee k enf or c em en t of t he adm i ni st r at ive 3 di sposi t i on , si n ce t h e a w ard h as a l readyb een rendered

. Th e qu est i on i s w h et h er S m i t h ’ s com pl ai n tseeks a parti alor com pl et e de n ovo revi ew of t h e agen cy de c i s i o n. I n Massi ngi l lv. Ni chols on , w e fac e d as i m i l ars i t uat i o n. The r e , t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s c o m pl ai nt w as unc l e ara s t o w he t he ri ts o ugh to nl y a r e vi e w o f t he
aw ard or of

t h e en t i re deci si on . T h e com pl ai n t both st ated t h at “t h e am ou n tof 4 t he c om pensatory dam ages aw ar ded .

. . w as notappr opr i at e” and as ked t hat

“ t h e C ou rtal l ow M assi n gi l l a tr i alon the m eri t s as t o t h e di scr i m i n ati on i ssues al l ege d i n t hi s c as e. ” R evi ew i ng t he c om pl ai nt “ w i t h an eye t ow ar ds ourl iber al 5
no t i c e pl e ad i ng s t and ar ds , ” w e c o nc l ude d t hatM as s i ngil lha d r e que s t e d a
c o m pl e t e t r i al

. W e f ur t he rhe l d t hatM as s i ngil ldi d no tne e d t o di s go r ge t he 6
m o ne y s he ha d a l ready receive d f r o m he ra w ar d i n o r de rt o pr o c e e d wi t h t he
c as e, not i ng t hat “ t her e i s not hi ng i n t he st at ut e c r eat i ng t he r i ghtof ac t i on, 42N o. 08- 31179

Id

. 7 Erikson v. P

ardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (200 7) (per curi am) (internal citationom itted) 8 (quo ting E

stel lev . Gam b le , 4 2 9U .S

. 9 7 , 1 0 6( 1 9 7 6))

. King v. Dogan , 3 1 F .3 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 6( 5 thCir

. 1 9 9 4). 9 4 U

. S

. C

. § 2000 e- 16 (c), w h i ch precl u des sui ti f t h e aw ard h as been parti al l y or e v e n co m p le te lyre n d e r e d .” 7 H ere, Sm i t h ’ s or i gi n alcom pl ai n tw as f i l ed p ro s e, t h ou gh Sm i t h l at e rhired
an att orney. “A docu m en t f i l ed p ro s e i s ‘ t o be l iberal l y constr u ed, ’an d ‘ a pro se c o m pl ai nt , ho w e ve ri nar t f ul l y pl e ad e d, m us tb e he l d t o l e s s st r i nge nts t and ar ds t han f o r m alpl e ad i ngs dr af t e d b y l awye r s . ’” Read i ng Sm i t h’ s pr o s e c o m pl ai nt 8 l ibe r al l y, w e ho l d t hati tdi d s e e k f ul lde no vo r e vi e w o f t he a ge nc y’ s de c i s i o n. S m i t h i n i t i al l y f

i l ed a f orm com pl ai n t f

or a § 706 (f

) act i on . H e l aterf

i l ed
an “Am e nde d Co m pl ai nt” w hi c h s t at e d t hat “ [ t ] he Pl ai nt i f f w o ul d l i ke t o Am e nd t h e com pl ai n tby att ach i n g t h e fol l ow i n g. ” “A n am en ded com pl ai n tsup ersedes t h e ori gi n alcom pl ai n tan d rend ers i tof no l egal ef

fectun l ess t h e am en ded
c o m pl ai nts pe c i f

i c al l y r e fe r s t o an d ad o pt s o ri nc o r po r at e s b y r e fe r e nc e t he
ear l i erpl eadi ng. ” W e l iber al l y c ons t r ue Sm i t h’ s l anguage st at i ng t hathe w as 9

“ at t ac hi ng t he f

o l l o w i ng” t o t he “ c o m pl ai nt” a s i nc o r po r at i ng t he pr e vi o us c o m pl ai ntb y r e fe r e nc e . Thus , w e w i l lrea d t he o r i gi nalc o m pl ai nta nd t he
am en ded com pl ai n tt ogether. N ei t h er t h e ori gi n alcom pl ai n tnor t h e am e nde d c o m pl ai ntc l e arly e xp l ai ns
w ha t t y p e o f r e v i e w S m i t h s e e k s . I n t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t , h e d e s c r ib e d t he fac t ualb as i s f

o rhi s di s c r i m i nat i o n c l ai m a ga i ns tthe VA

. I n r e s po ns e t o t he f orm ’ s prom pt, “[ I] f

y ou d i sagree w i t h a n y of the E E O C ’ s f

i n di n gs or concl u si on s, st ate w h y, ” S m i t h referred to an a f f i da vi ta n d am en dm en tto the af f i da vi tf i l ed
w i t h t h e c o m pl ai n tt h at desc ribed i n dep t h t h e detai l s of t h e al l eged di scr i m i n ati on an d repri sal s agai n stSm i t h , as w el l as t h e m en t alhea l t h i ssuesN o. 08- 31179

SeeMass in

gil l , 49 6 F .3d at 3 86. 10 5 f rom w hi c h Sm i t h a l l e ge d he s uf fe r e d d ue t o t he r e pr i s al s . I n hi s am en ded
c om pl ai nt , Sm i t h st at ed t hat“ [ t ] he r eas on o f [ si c ] t hi s C ivi l Su i t i s bec ause I am
s u ffe r in gfr o m o n g o in g[s ic ] M e n ta l H e a lth p r o b le m s th a t h a s [ s ic ] r e s u lte d in p h y s ic a l p r o b le m s a s w e ll,” a n dg o e s o n to d is c u s s th o s e p r o b le m s . Th e VAar gues t hatthe am ended co m pl ai ntdem ons t r at es thatS m i t h w as o nl y di s s at i s f

i e d wi t h t he am o unt o f c o m pe ns at o r y da m ag e s awar de d a nd t hus di d notse e k de nov o re vi e w of t he e nt i r e EE O C de c i s i o n. W hi l e i tm ayb e t r ue t hatSm i t h’ s di ss at i sfac t i on der ives f r om t he am ountof

t he E E O C ’ s aw ar d, t hat
a lo n e d o e s n o te s t a b li s h th a tS m it h s o u g h to n lya p a r t ia l r e v ie w o f t h e E E O C ’s de c i s i o n. The fac tt hatSm i t h i nc l ude d i n hi s c o m pl ai nta nd a m e nde d c o m pl ai nt al lo f t he fac t s und e r l yi ng t he di s c r i m i nat i o n c l ai m a nd n o tj us tt ho s e r e l at i ng to the da m a ge s aw a rd , com b i n ed w i th the ab sen ce of an y sta tem en t cl ea r ly
r e que s t i ng o nl y r e vi e w o f t he a w ar d, i s eno ugh f o rus t o c o nc l ude , c o ns t r ui ng t he
com pl ai n t l iberal l y, t h at Sm i t h seeks r evi ew of t h e E E O C ’ s f

u l ldeci si on an d n ot j u st th e aw ard am ou n t
. Th eref ore, t h e di st ri ctcourtha d su bj ectm att er ju r is d ic tio n to co n s id e rth e m e r its o f S m ith ’ s cla im

. M o r e o ve r , a s w e he l d i n Ma ss ing ill , t he fac tt hatSm i t h ha s c as he d t he
c h e c k s f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s a wa r d a n d h a s n o t r e t u r n e d t h o s e a m o u n t s t o t h e VA do e s no tpr e c l ude hi m f r o m b r i ngi ng t hi s s ui t
. H o w e ve r , i f, a s a r e s ul to f t he 10 d e n o v o r e v i e w, n o l i a b i l i t yi s f o un do ra l o wera war di s g r a nt e d , t he VA m ay c o unt e r c l ai m against Sm i t h t o r e c o ve rt he a m o unt s pa i d i n e xc e s s o f t he ul t i m at e a w ar d. * * * W e RE VE RSE t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s g r ant o f t he m o t i o n t o di s m i s s a nd R E M A N D f

or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs.