Sayyedalhosseini v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Background

Sonia Sayyedalhosseini initially sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The court allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee but dismissed her original complaint for failing to state a claim, while allowing her to amend. The court also noted that the complaint was difficult to understand and did not clearly identify the laws allegedly violated or the basis for the claims.

Sayyedalhosseini then filed a First Amended Complaint with a 77-page statement of facts and more than 300 pages of exhibits. The opinion states that the allegations generally appeared to concern her work as a professor at Losrios Community College, her report of workplace discrimination and sexual harassment to the EEOC, and her contention that EEOC employees failed to conduct a proper investigation. She asserted claims under sections 702 and 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Sayyedalhosseini also moved for entry of judgment.

APA claim

The court explained that APA section 702 permits judicial review of certain agency actions that are made reviewable by another statute or that constitute final agency action for which no other adequate court remedy exists.

The court found that Sayyedalhosseini had identified no statute creating a right to judicial review in these circumstances. It also found that she had not identified a final agency action that caused her injury. The conduct she appeared to challenge occurred during the EEOC’s investigation. The court stated that the EEOC’s internal processing of a complaint is preparatory to a lawsuit and does not have determinate legal consequences. The court further stated that even the conclusion of an EEOC investigation would not qualify as final agency action because it would not prevent her from suing her former employer in court.

The court therefore dismissed the APA claim.

Title VII claim

The court observed that the amended complaint did not expressly identify the conduct forming the basis of the alleged Title VII violation. It assumed that the claim was based on the same allegations concerning the EEOC’s handling of the investigation.

The court ruled that Title VII provides a private cause of action allowing employees to sue their employers for alleged discrimination, not the EEOC for allegedly mishandling a discrimination charge. Because the EEOC was not Sayyedalhosseini’s employer, and because she challenged the EEOC’s investigation or its outcome, the court concluded that Title VII did not provide a cause of action against the EEOC on these allegations.

The court therefore dismissed the Title VII claim.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. The court stated that the allegations did not support a plausible claim and that it could not envision one that amendment would cure. The court denied Sayyedalhosseini’s motion for entry of judgment on the same basis and directed the clerk to close the action. The order states that this terminated docket numbers 26 and 32.