Summary
Pro se plaintiff sued the EEOC for discriminatory handling of his employment discrimination charge. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that the plaintiff abandoned his appeal by failing to challenge the district court's reasoning—namely, that the EEOC is immune from suit and that Title VII provides no cause of action against the EEOC for improper investigation or processing of charges. The court reiterated that pro se litigants must still comply with appellate rules and that issues not raised in the brief are waived.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the complaint on immunity and lack of cause of action grounds, and in denying the motion for reconsideration.
Holdings
- When a pro se appellant's brief fails to challenge the district court's rulings, the appellant abandons those challenges on appeal.
Key quotations
“While this Court 'liberally construe[s] pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest,' ... pro se appellants must still comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a), which 'requires appellants in their briefs to provide the court with a clear statement of the issues on appeal.'”
“Because George's appellate brief fails to challenge either the basis for the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his complaint or the denial of reconsideration, we find that he has abandoned such challenges on appeal.”
Factual background
Andrew George sued the EEOC, alleging that his claims against his employer were handled by the EEOC in a discriminatory manner. The district court dismissed the action sua sponte, reasoning that the defendants were immune from suit and that Title VII provides no cause of action against the EEOC for improper investigation. The court also denied reconsideration.
Procedural history
Andrew George filed a pro se suit against the EEOC, its District Director, and three investigators, alleging discriminatory handling of his employment discrimination charge. The district court dismissed the action sua sponte on immunity and lack of cause of action grounds, and denied reconsideration. George appealed.