United States District Court, E.D. New York
July 7, 2005.
RICHARD STONE, Plaintiff,
NYC TRANSIT and UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: NINA GERSHON, District Judge
Plaintiff commenced this action against the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the New York City
Transit Authority ("NYCTA") alleging violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213.
Plaintiff was never employed by the EEOC, nor did he ever seek
employment by the EEOC; his claims against the federal agency are
based on allegations that it failed to investigate adequately his
charge of employment discrimination against the NYCTA. On March
29, 2005, the EEOC moved to dismiss the claims asserted against
it on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, and that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. By order dated March 31,
2005, the court set a briefing schedule for the EEOC's motion to
dismiss, pursuant to which plaintiff was directed to serve and
file opposition to the motion by May 2, 2005 and the EEOC was
directed to serve and file any reply by May 16, 2005. By letter
dated April 1, 2005, counsel for the EEOC informed the court that she would be on medical leave until May 27, 2005, and
requested an extension of time to file a reply until June 16,
2005. The request was granted by the court on April 20, 2005. By
letter dated June 28, 2005, plaintiff advised the court that he
had not been served with reply papers by the EEOC. But, since
plaintiff neither served nor filed any opposition papers to the
EEOC's motion, there was no occasion for the EEOC to submit a
The unopposed motion of the EEOC is hereby granted. It is
well-settled that "the United States, as sovereign, is immune
from suit save as it consents to be sued . . ., and the terms of
its consent to be sued in any court define that court's
jurisdiction to entertain the suit." United States v. Mitchell,
445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (internal quotations omitted). Although
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"),
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, the relevant provisions of which are
incorporated into the ADA by reference, grants a waiver of
sovereign immunity in cases in which federal employees or
prospective employees allege discriminatory employment practices
by a federal agency, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, neither the ADA
nor Title VII grants a waiver of sovereign immunity in the
circumstances presented by this case. Accordingly, with respect
to plaintiff's claims against the EEOC, the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, and those claims are dismissed.
In any event, plaintiff fails to state a claim against the
EEOC. "Title VII provides no express or implied cause of action
against the EEOC for claims that the EEOC failed properly to
investigate or process an employment discrimination charge."
Baba v. Japan Travel Bureau International, Inc., 111 F.3d 2, 6
(2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam). In conclusion, for the reasons set forth above, the EEOC's
motion to dismiss is granted.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.