Hall v. U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n

Full title: STEVEN H. HALL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Sep 15, 2017

Civil Action No. 17-cv-1469 (TSC) (D.D.C. Sep. 15, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 17-cv-1469 (TSC)

09-15-2017

STEVEN H. HALL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant.

TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Steven Hall is a disabled veteran who was employed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (Compl. ¶ 1). In 2012, he successfully filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits with the Department of Labor. (Id. p. 2) After receiving $30,000 in benefits, DHS challenged the workers' compensation award and Hall's benefits were rescinded. (Id.) He filed a complaint with the DHS internal Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") office, and it appears that the EEO office determined his complaint was untimely. (Id.) Hall challenged that finding by filing a "workers' compensation and employment discrimination" complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which affirmed the agency's decision. (Id. ¶ 4).

In this lawsuit, Hall asserts "workers' compensation and employment discrimination" claims against the EEOC pursuant to Title VII 42 U.S.C. 2000e, Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2013) (amended 2008). (Compl. p. 1). Hall alleges that the EEOC violated these federal laws by ignoring evidence, losing evidence and falsely determining that his DHS EEO complaint was untimely. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4a, 4c; id. p. 8).

"[N]o cause of action against the EEOC exists for challenges to its processing of a claim." Smith v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Rather, "Congress intended the private right of action . . . under which an aggrieved employee may bring a Title VII action directly against his or her employer [] to serve as the remedy for any improper handling of a discrimination charge by the EEOC." Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)). Therefore, the court will dismiss this case by separate order.

To the extent Hall wishes to amend his Complaint to assert claims against his employer and to include the factual biases for his discrimination claims, he may file a motion to reopen this case and amend his Complaint by October 20, 2017.

The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to:

STEVEN H. HALL
7141 Chesapeake Village Blvd
Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732

Date: September 15, 2017

/s/_________

TANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge