Opinion ID: 67873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: dismissal of claims against the eeoc

Text: Reeves argues the district court erred by dismissing with prejudice his claims against the EEOC – based, in part, on the agency’s decision to walk out of a 1 Reeves further argues the district court erred by denying his request for appointment of counsel. However, this case does not have exceptional circumstances that would require the appointment of counsel, and the core issues of this case – discrimination on the basis of race and religion and hostile work environment – are “not so unusual that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). 2 mediation session – because the claim was “very meritorious,” and because the EEOC had a duty to mediate fairly but failed to do so. We review de novo a grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, accept the allegations in the complaint as true, and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 208 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2000). When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court considers whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). Granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate when it is demonstrated beyond a doubt the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. The establishment of an employment relationship is required to obtain relief pursuant to Title VII. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 2233 (1984); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. We also review de novo a sovereign’s immunity from suit. United States v. 1461 W. 42nd St., Hialeah, Fla., 251 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has ruled sovereign immunity shields federal agencies from suit unless that agency waived sovereign immunity. Dep’t of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 687, 690 (1999). 3 Reeves does not argue, and the evidence does not suggest, the EEOC was his employer. Therefore, Title VII did not allow him to obtain relief against the EEOC. See Gibson v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 579 F.2d 890, 891 (5th Cir. 1978)2 (“Title VII . . . confers no right of action against the enforcement agency. Nothing done or omitted by EEOC affected [Plaintiff’s] rights.”). Furthermore, the EEOC is a federal agency, and there is no evidence in the record that the EEOC waived sovereign immunity. Therefore, Reeves is precluded from bringing suit against the EEOC under another provision of federal law. See Blue Fox, Inc., 119 S. Ct. at 724. Thus, the district court did not err when it dismissed Reeves’ complaint against the EEOC for failure to state a claim and because it was entitled to sovereign immunity.