Gipson v. EEOC

Background

Isis Gipson filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in June 2024, alleging that her former employer discriminated against her because of her sex. During the investigation, the EEOC asked Gipson to provide additional evidence within twenty-four hours. Gipson did not respond because she mistakenly assumed that an attorney would provide the information. The EEOC did not receive the requested evidence, closed the case, and issued a notice informing Gipson of her right to sue.

Gipson sued the EEOC, Diane Sandstrom, and Laura Buss, whom the opinion identifies as EEOC officials. She alleged that the EEOC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing only twenty-four hours for a response, closing the case without considering her failure to respond, and refusing to reopen the case after issuing the notice. She asserted claims under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Constitution’s procedural due-process protections. Gipson represented herself.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the federal statute governing lawsuits filed by people seeking to proceed without paying filing fees. That statute requires dismissal when a complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and interpreted them liberally, but explained that a self-represented complaint still must allege enough facts to support a legally plausible claim.

APA claims

The court dismissed the APA claims because Congress had not authorized a claim against the EEOC for alleged negligence or other misconduct in processing an employment-discrimination charge. The court explained that Title VII provides the relevant remedy for a charging party dissatisfied with the EEOC’s handling of a charge: a lawsuit against the allegedly discriminating employer. The court also held that the EEOC’s case-management decisions during its handling of discrimination charges were not agency actions that could be reviewed under the APA in these circumstances.

Due-process claims

The court understood Gipson’s due-process allegations as attempting to state a claim under Bivens, a limited type of constitutional claim against a federal official in the official’s individual capacity. The court held that Bivens claims cannot be brought against the United States or its agencies, including the EEOC. As to Sandstrom and Buss, the court held that the Supreme Court had not recognized a Bivens claim for EEOC officials’ handling of discrimination charges. The court also concluded that Title VII provided an adequate remedy through a lawsuit against the former employer, so there was no basis to create a new Bivens claim in this setting.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan ordered that Gipson’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court denied Gipson’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot and directed that judgment be entered.