Privacy Act Notice Privacy Act Notice. The collection of this information is authorized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 633a; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794a; and Executive Order 11478, as amended. This information will be used to adjudicate complaints of alleged discrimination and to evaluate the effectiveness of the EEO program.

Those statutory terms are defined to mean the head of the cabinet-level department in which the plaintiff worked. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a) (incorporating definition of “agency” from 5 U.S.C. § 105); 5 U.S.C. § 105 (incorporating definition of “Executive agency” from 5 U.S.C. § 101); 5 U.S.C. § 101 (defining “Executive department” as any of the 15 cabinet-level departments); see generally Romain v. Shear, 799 F.2d 1416, 1418 (9th Cir. 1986). The Doe defendants should therefore be dismissed.

The Complaint seeks to assert claims against the SSA and Does 1-10. However, Case 2:16-cv-08973-PA-FFM Document 19 Filed 03/23/17 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:86 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “[p]ursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), in a Title VII action, the only proper defendant is ‘the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate,’ not the agency itself or any individual federal employees.” Leek v. United States, Case No. 2:15-cv-05682- ODW (ASx), 2016 WL 1065790 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016) at *4

Plaintiff cannot state a claim against the Army for discrimination under Title VII without exhaustion of the administrative remedies set forth by Congress. See Pacheco, 448 F.3d at 787-88; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). See also Grost v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61608, 46-48 (W.D. Tex. 2014) III. Conclusion Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to any claims of discrimination against the Army.

· Privacy Act Notice · · · · . Privacy Act Notice, The coll~cllon of this information Is authorized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 633a; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794a; and Executive Order 11478, as amended. This Information will be used to adjudicate complaints of alleged discrimination and to evaluate the effectiveness of the EEO program.

Id. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit in an en banc opinion has abrogated Dollis regarding § 2000e-16. Cent.

With respect to the argument based upon the Back Pay statute, the Court notes that Plaintiff brings this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, by which a federal government employee may file a civil action as provided Page 2 Case 3:13-cv-00702-PLR-HBG Document 31 Filed 12/02/14 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 257 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51894, *6 in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(d) [*7] specifically makes 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), governing remedies available for unlawful employment practices, applicable to actions brought by a federal employee pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 2000e-16. Under 42 U.s.c. § 2000e-5(g), “[i]f the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in . . . an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may. . . order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include . . . reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay[.]

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.107, 1614.110, 1614.407. The proper defendant in a Title VII case is “the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).

See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). 14 Cir. 1982) (a crucial feature of the plaintiff’s case is a showing that the alleged Title VII charge is timely); Cones v. Shalala, 945 F.Supp. 342, 348 (D.D.C. 1996) (failure to pursue administrative claims bars subsequent federal court action). Plaintiff's Complaint lacks the necessary specificity to enable Defendants to understand the nature of the claims against them.

Johnson v. Peterson, 996 F.2d 397, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 7121(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c)). - 10 - Case 1:04-cv-10593-EFH Document 28 Filed 04/16/2005