Myrick v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Filing 12

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered denying plaintiff's second ex parte motion 11 to vacate administrative dismissals. Plaintiff has until January 24, 2014, to show good cause why this action should not be dismissed or file an amended complaint. Failure to comply with the directives outlined in the January 10 Memorandum and Order will result in dismissal of this action. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
)
KYL V. MYRICK,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )
COMMISSION,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)

Civil Action No.
13-12783-FDS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND EX PARTE MOTION TO VACATE
SAYLOR, J.
Plaintiff Kyl V. Myrick initiated this action by filing a self-prepared complaint against the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Plaintiff filed a charge of
discrimination against his former employer with the Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination (“MCAD”), which was dual-filed with the EEOC. Plaintiff alleges that during
the MCAD proceedings, he informed MCAD that his former employer had submitted numerous
false statements and affidavits. Compl. at ¶ 2. He complains that MCAD itself had set down
falsehoods, ignored plaintiff’s arguments, and issued a lack of probable cause finding. Id.
Plaintiff complains that the EEOC adopted the “mistake-filled findings [of the MCAD]” and
dismissed his case. Id. at ¶ 3. For relief, plaintiff asks this Court to “require the EEOC to reverse
its dismissal of case 16C-2011-00796, that the Court, in the interest of the administrative dualfiling symmetry, instruct the EEOC to compel the MCAD to vacate its own LOPC decision, that
as penalty the current Defendant, independently of the MCAD, be bound to pay [Myrick] 80,000
USD (less than 1/20 the value of his remaining career, assuming moderate occupation

advancements) for the EEOC’s having contributed to pain and suffering and employment
vulnerability, and that the Court impose any other remedies it deems suitable.” Id.
By Memorandum and Order dated January 10, 2014, the Court, among other things,
permitted Myrick to proceed in forma pauperis and granted him until January 24, 2014, to show
good cause why this action should not be dismissed or file an amended complaint. See Docket
No. 9. The January 10 Memorandum and Order denied Myrick’s motion to vacate the
administrative dismissals and advised him that the only remedy for a complaining party who is
dissatisfied with EEOC’s actions on his charge of employment discrimination is to bring an action
against the employer in federal court. Id. The Court noted that plaintiff had brought his
complaint against the EEOC and not against his former employer.
Rather than file a show-cause reply or an amended complaint, Myrick filed a one-page
Motion to Vacate Administrative Dismissals. See Docket No. 11. In that motion, plaintiff
restated many of the allegations from his original complaint. He also alleged that he was
deprived of the “concilation mechanism” [sic] of the EEOC and refers to E.E.O.C. v. Bass Pro
Outdoor World, LLC, No. 4:11–CV–3425, 2013 WL 5515345, *4 (S.D. Tex. 2013). Myrick
concludes his motion by stating that he is “amenable to adhering to the original monetary relief of
80,000 USD . . . [and hoping that this cases’s] first Motion to Vacate can simply be continued
without ruling, while leaving the surrounding Complaint intact.” Id.
In order to pursue a claim of discrimination against an employer, a plaintiff must timely
file a verified charge with an administrative body, either the EEOC or MCAD, and receive a
right-to-sue letter. See Aly v. Mohegan Council, Boy Scouts of Am., 711 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir.
2013). To the extent plaintiff complains that the EEOC has failed to engage in conciliation
efforts, Title VII does not impose rigid strictures upon the course of processing charges of

2

discrimination.1 Once the EEOC determines that there is no reasonable cause to believe that a
charge is true, it must dismiss the charge and issue the complainant a statutory right-to-sue letter.
Based on the foregoing it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s second Motion to Vacate
Administrative Dismissals is DENIED. Plaintiff has until January 24, 2014, to show good cause
why this action should not be dismissed or file an amended complaint. Failure to comply with the
directives outlined in the January 10 Memorandum and Order will result in dismissal of this
action.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge
Dated: January 15, 2014

1

The conciliation attempts at issue in E.E.O.C. v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 4:11–CV–3425,
2013 WL 5515345, *4 (S.D. Tex. 2013), arise when the EEOC files suit against a defendant employer for violations
of Title VII. Such is not the case here.

3