McGrady v. Mattis et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Defendant Lipnic's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 35 ) is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Lipnic are DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 6/22/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
MISTY D. McGRADY,
JIM MATTIS, et al.,
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
Pending before the court is Defendant Victoria Lipnic’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 35). For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Lipnic’s Motion is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lipnic are DISMISSED.
Plaintiff brought this age discrimination action against, among others, Defendant Victoria
Lipnic, Acting Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), in her official
capacity only. Because a complaint against an agency head in her official capacity only is an action
against the agency itself, Plaintiff’s claims are actually against the EEOC. Kentucky v. Graham, 473
U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (cited in Burns v. Robertson County, 192 F.Supp.3d 909, 919 (M.D. Tenn.
The EEOC argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any claims against it
because such claims are barred by sovereign immunity. The EEOC is an agency of the United States
government. The United States, as a sovereign entity, is immune from suit unless it consents to be
sued. Adkisson v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., 790 F.3d 641, 645 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing United
States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980)). Therefore, in order for this court to have subject matter
jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims against the EEOC, Plaintiff must establish that the United States has
waived its sovereign immunity and consented to be sued.
As relevant to this case, the EEOC is the federal agency charged with enforcing the
provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 633a, which prohibits age discrimination by the federal government.
Plaintiff has cited no statute or regulation in which the EEOC has waived its sovereign immunity for
actions against it in its enforcement capacity.
Plaintiff contends that the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 633a(c). Section
633a(c) provides that any person aggrieved by a violation of the age discrimination prohibition in
subsection (a) may bring a civil action in any federal district court of competent jurisdiction. That
provision would be applicable only if Plaintiff were an employee or former employee of the EEOC,
which she has not alleged. There is also no allegation in this case that the EEOC discriminated
against Plaintiff in any manner.
Plaintiff has not established that this court has jurisdiction over the EEOC for purposes of
this action. Her alleged claims1 against the EEOC are barred by sovereign immunity.
Accordingly, Defendant Lipnic’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 35) is GRANTED, and all
claims against Defendant Lipnic are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ALETA A. TRAUGER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The court notes that Plaintiff has admitted she does not assert any claims against
the EEOC. Docket No. 39 at 3. She states that “the EEOC may also be interested in the outcome
of this dispute” and that the EEOC “may wish to weigh in on the issue.” Id. at 2 and 4. These
allegations are not sufficient to state a claim against the EEOC.
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?