ORDER denying 15 Motion for Judicial Inquiry and/or Administrative Investigation of the EEOC. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on February 22, 2010. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION DALE ADAMS V. TYSON FOODS, INC. et al ORDER The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judicial Inquiry and/or Administrative Investigation of the EEOC (Doc. 15) on January 25, 2010. The Motion contained an attachment (Doc. 15-1) consisting of communication between the Plaintiff and the EEOC. The Plaintiff also filed a "Factual Evidence of EEOC Civil and Constitutional Rights Violation, Corruption and Abuse" (Doc. 16) which also consisted of communication between the Plaintiff and the EEOC. The bulk of the communications seems to assert that the Plaintiff is not happy with the investigation conducted by the EEOC concerning his termination by Tyson Foods, Inc. The agency has the initial responsibility to determine coverage of the Act, and the court cannot foreclose the Commission from conducting its investigation to determine whether an unfair employment practice has been committed. See Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Wallings, 327 U.S. 186, 209, 214, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946); New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Brown, 507 F.2d 160, 164 (5th Cir. 1975). The agency decision when made is subject to review in an appropriate proceeding. Willingham v. Macon Telegraph Publishing Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975); Baker v. California Land Title Company, 507 F.2d 895 (9th Cir. 1974); Dodge v. Giant Food, Inc., 160 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 488 F.2d 1333 (1973); Aros v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 348 F.Supp. 661 Page -1NO. 3:09-CV-03054-JLH DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF
(C.D.Cal.1972); Donohue v. Shoe Corporation of America, 337 F.Supp. 1357 (C.D.Cal.1972). E.E.O.C. v. Quick Shop Markets, Inc. 526 F.2d 802, 803 (C.A.Mo. 1975). The Plaintiff initiate this cause of action against Tyson Foods, Inc. and certain employees of Tyson's alleging "EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION WRONGFUL TERMINATION, SARBANS-OXLEY, EQUAL PAY VIOLATION, FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT VIOLATION and RETALIATION". (Doc. 5, p. 1). The Plaintiff has not sued the EEOC in the present cause of action nor would the EEOC be an appropriate party. The court is not empowered to "investigate" the EEOC but, as previously stated may "review" an agency decision. The Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Inquiry and/or Administrative Investigation of the EEOC (Doc. 15) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this February 22, 2010.
/s/ HONORABLE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?