Ntamere v. Amerihealth Adminstrators Inc

Background

Anthony E. Ntamere alleged that he was an employee of AmeriHealth Administrators, Inc., a subsidiary of Independence Blue Cross, LLC. He alleged that, during a company-sponsored training in July 2019, a trainer used a racist slur and that he recorded the incident. After he complained to human resources, the complaint was closed and a probation notice was placed in his employee file because he recorded the training in violation of company policies.

Ntamere then sought to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He alleged that EEOC Investigator Charlotte Czarnecki filled out the charge and incorrectly sent it to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission instead of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The EEOC later closed its file, determining that the information it obtained did not allow it to conclude that federal law had been violated.

Ntamere also alleged that his employer later placed a second probation notice in his file after he criticized a company email about racism on the company intranet and made additional critical comments on company forums. His employment ended on June 24, 2020. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights investigated his later discrimination charge and found no probable cause, then affirmed that decision after reconsideration. It also stated that some earlier probation-related claims might violate the Minnesota Human Rights Act but were not timely presented to the agency.

Report and Recommendation and objections

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Ntamere’s claims against the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, the EEOC, and Czarnecki. The recommendation focused on Ntamere’s allegation that the defendants violated his constitutional right to due process by cross-filing his 2019 EEOC complaint with the Pennsylvania agency rather than the Minnesota agency, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 generally permits a claim for violating constitutional rights when the violation is committed by a person acting under state law. The recommendation concluded that the EEOC and Czarnecki acted under federal law and that the Minnesota Department of Human Rights was not a “person” that could be sued under Section 1983. Ntamere objected to dismissing the EEOC and Czarnecki and asked to amend his complaint.

Court’s analysis

The Court concluded that Ntamere could not pursue a claim against the EEOC or Czarnecki under Section 1983. It also rejected his argument that he could proceed under a Bivens claim, which is a court-created claim for certain constitutional violations by federal officials. The Court stated that Bivens does not allow suits against federal agencies such as the EEOC and that there is no established Bivens claim against an EEOC official for allegedly sending an employment-discrimination charge to the wrong district.

Ntamere did not object to the conclusion that the Minnesota Department of Human Rights should be dismissed because it is not a “person” under Section 1983. He asked to add Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero, and Lead Investigator Tom Bernette as defendants in their official capacities, remove the department as a defendant, and correct typographical errors. The Court granted that request.

Disposition

The Court accepted the report and recommendation. It overruled Ntamere’s objections in part and granted them in part. It dismissed Ntamere’s claims against Charlotte Czarnecki and the EEOC without prejudice. It allowed Ntamere to amend his amended complaint within 30 days, but limited the amendments to adding Ellison, Lucero, and Bernette, removing the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, and correcting typographical errors. The Court did not permit other revisions.