COPPENS v. BT GLOBAL SERVICES
Filing
13
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 12/1/2011. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JEAN-PIERRE COPPENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BT GLOBAL SERVICES,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4754 (MLC)
O P I N I O N
THE PLAINTIFF, who is pro se, brought this action in state
court to recover damages for employment “discrimination on the
basis of citizenship status under [sic] the violation of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act”.
(Dkt. entry no. 1, Rmv.
Not., Ex. A, Compl., Attachment at 1 (entitled “Summery [sic] Of
What Happened Resulting In My Claim”).)
removed the action from state court.
The defendant employer
(Rmv. Not.)
THE DEFENDANT now moves to dismiss the Complaint, arguing,
inter alia, that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust the required
administrative remedies set forth in the Immigration Reform and
Control Act (“IRCA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b.
(Dkt. entry no. 6, Def.
Br. at 7-8; see dkt. entry no. 9, Def. Reply Br. at 3-4.)
plaintiff opposes the motion.
at 1-3.)
The
(Dkt. entry no. 8, Pl. Affidavit
The Court will (1) grant the part of the motion seeking
dismissal of the Complaint for failure to exhaust the required
administrative remedies, and (2) dismiss the Complaint.
THE IRCA:
supplies a comprehensive administrative process for
filing a claim. See § 1324b(b)-(j) . . . A district
court has only a few limited functions under the [IRCA],
see § 1324b(f)(2) (issuing subpoena where party fails to
obey ALJ subpoena), § 1324b(j)(1) (enforcing unappealed
agency order); neither of which permits initial review of
a claim. Thus, a litigant has no private cause of action
in a federal district court to enforce violations of §
1324b in the first instance . . . [When a] Plaintiff is
seeking primary enforcement of the [IRCA] in [District]
Court[,] [s]uch a cause of action is not sustainable.
Shine v. TD Bank Fin. Grp., No. 09–4377, 2010 WL 2771773, at *8
(D.N.J. July 12, 2010) (case citations omitted) (granting part of
motion seeking dismissal of IRCA claims).
FURTHERMORE:
Section 1324b contains a detailed administrative
enforcement mechanism that explicitly requires exhaustion
of administrative remedies before a claim may be filed in
federal court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(b)-(j) . . .
Specifically, an aggrieved party is required to file a
complaint with the Special Counsel for ImmigrationRelated Unfair Employment Practices, which then makes a
determination regarding the validity of the complaint. 8
U.S.C. § 1324b(b)-(d). The complainant may then request
a hearing before an administrative law judge. 8 U.S.C. §
1324b(e)-(h). The complainant may appeal the
administrative law judge’s final order to the appropriate
United States Court of Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(i).
Not only do comprehensive administrative mechanisms exist,
but also the legislative history . . . yields no support
for the proposition that Congress intended to create a
private right of action in section[] . . . 1324b.
Biran v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 02-5506, 2002 WL 31040345, at
*2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2002) (case citations omitted) (granting
motion to dismiss IRCA claim based on lack of subject matter
2
jurisdiction; noting IRCA administrative procedures show “intent
to limit enforcement of alleged violations to administrative
mechanisms before resort can be had to a court action”); accord
Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 49 F.3d 1384, 1385 (9th
Cir. 1995); see Tudoriu v. Horseshoe Casino Hammond, No. 04-294,
2006 WL 752490, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 21, 2006) (granting part of
motion seeking dismissal of IRCA claims; noting judicial review
is foreclosed until administrative procedures are exhausted).
THE PLAINTIFF has failed to abide by the procedures set
forth in IRCA, and may not proceed here.
The plaintiff must
first exhaust the required administrative remedies, and then
appeal from any administrative order to the appropriate United
States Court of Appeals.
The Court will dismiss the Complaint
insofar as it asserts claims under IRCA.
THE COURT will also dismiss the Complaint insofar as it may
be construed, arguendo, to assert claims under state law (“State
Claims”).
Any purported State Claims that the Court can discern
in the Complaint stem from, and are hopelessly intertwined with,
the plaintiff’s core allegation that the defendant has violated
IRCA.
In an excess of caution, the Court will dismiss any
purported State Claims without prejudice, and with leave to the
plaintiff to assert the State Claims in a new action (1) upon
exhaustion of the IRCA administrative remedies, and (2) if the
3
plaintiff’s concerns underlying the State Claims are not resolved
by the IRCA procedures.
THE COURT notes that the plaintiff is foreclosed from
seeking further relief under the civil action number assigned to
this action.
The plaintiff — if intending to either (1) utilize
the “few limited functions” available to a federal district court
after he institutes administrative proceedings under IRCA, or (2)
attempt to pursue the State Claims at the conclusion of such
proceedings — must institute a new action.
The Court will issue
an appropriate order and judgment.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:
December 1, 2011
4
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?