Waldron did not cite and this court's research did not reveal a jurisdictional basis for Waldron's claim against the EEOC and its employees for failing to pursue her charge of discrimination, this court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over that claim.
Waldron's second claim is that the EEOC actually settled her claim against her former employer for $ 126,000 but Pierre took the money for herself and refuses to give it to Waldron. Waldron argues that the court has jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 654. Section 654, however, is a criminal statute which does not expressly provide for a private cause of action, and the court finds that there is no private cause of action implied in 18 U.S.C. § 654. See Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79, 45 L. Ed. 2d 26, 95 S. Ct. 2080 (1975); Israel Aircraft Indus. v. Sanwa Bus. Credit Corp., 16 F.3d 198, 200 (7th Cir. 1994).
Arguably Waldron's complaint might state a tort claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). However, Waldron has failed to allege that she has exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to any tort claim as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Because Waldron did not first present her tort claim to the appropriate federal agency, the claim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 111-113, 124 L. Ed. 2d 21, 113 S. Ct. 1980 (1993); Sullivan v. United States, 21 F.3d 198, 205 (7th Cir. 1994); Cleveland v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11601, No. 93 C 0994, 1993 WL 321755, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 1993).
Having dismissed the claims against the EEOC, all that is left of this case is Waldron's claims against Pierre. Essentially, Waldron's claims against Pierre are (1) that Pierre mishandled Waldron's EEOC charge and (2) that Pierre took the $ 126,000 for her own personal use. However, Waldron has not cited, and the court's research did not reveal, any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. As discussed above, neither Title VII nor 18 U.S.C. § 654 provide such a basis.
Because the court has determined that this case should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the court need not reach the merits of the EEOC's 12(b)(6) motion. Similarly, the court denies Waldron's motion for summary judgment as moot.
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the court (1) grants defendant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's motion to dismiss plaintiff Debra Waldron's complaint and (2) denies plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's case is dismissed in its entirety. Plaintiff's claim that the EEOC or its employees mishandled her EEOC charge is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claim that the EEOC settled her claim and defendant Cynthia Pierre took the money is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is free to pursue whatever tort claim she might have against defendant Cynthia Pierre in state court.
Date: MAR 12 1998
James H. Alesia
United States District Judge
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE - MAR 13 1998 DOCKETED
Decision by Court. This action came to hearing before the Court. The issues have been heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Thus, the court (1) grants defendant U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint and (2) denies plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's case is dismissed in its entirety. Plaintiff's claim that defendant EEOC and its employees mishandled her claim is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claim that defendant EEOC settled her claim and defendant Cynthia G. Pierre took the settlement money is dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.