Overview
Cohen Milstein, Democracy Defenders Fund, and Burakiewicz & DePriest, PLLC represent the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest union of federal workers in the United States, and two federal employees in a lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) challenging the EEOC’s suspension of federal-sector class complaints pending before its administrative judges.
Plaintiffs claim that despite regulations requiring the EEOC to process and adjudicate these matters promptly, the Commission has unlawfully directed administrative judges to indefinitely halt class cases, barring them from holding hearings, deciding motions, issuing decisions, or taking any other action to move properly filed complaints forward.
This suspension effectively closes the doors to a longstanding adjudicatory process specifically created to address systemic discrimination affecting groups of federal employees. Worst of all, employees remain subject to discriminatory practices and hostile work environments while the cases are suspended.
Plaintiffs claim that this suspension directive violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706, in several respects:
- Because the EEOC must follow its own regulations, the implementation of the suspension directive is contrary to law, in violation of APA § 706(2).
- The suspension directive is arbitrary and capricious under APA § 706(2) because the EEOC has provided no reasoned explanation for a blanket policy that halts an entire category of discrimination cases, considered no apparent alternatives, and addressed no reliance interests.
- The EEOC is violating APA § 706(1) because the suspension directive unlawfully withholds and unreasonably delays action on federal-sector class cases that the EEOC is required by law to take.
As a result, plaintiffs seek a court order vacating the directive and compelling the EEOC to resume and complete the processing of class complaints in accordance with law.
Case Background
AFGE is the largest union of federal workers, representing more than 800,000 federal civilian employees, including those who have filed or intend to file class complaints with the EEOC and those whose rights are affected by pending EEOC class cases. The suspension directive harms AFGE and its members by indefinitely suspending class complaints affecting union members and impairs AFGE’s efforts to counsel and represent those members in EEOC proceedings.
Plaintiff Deanna Chelette is an AFGE member and a class agent in a certified class complaint against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, alleging severe and ongoing sexual harassment against women employees at the Federal Correctional Complex in Pollock, Louisiana (FCC Pollock). Pippen v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, EEOC No. 460-2024-00132X. Plaintiff Alexzandria Boyd is a corrections officer who currently works at FCC Pollock and falls within the Pippen class definition.
The Pippen case had been certified as a class action and notice of the decision was being distributed to class members when the EEOC’s suspension directive halted it over seven months ago.
On December 10, 2025, EEOC Administrative Judge Erania Ebron issued a “Notification of Case Processing Abeyance” in the Pippen matter, as a result of an EEOC-wide order to stay all federal-sector class case processing:
Effective immediately, all case processing in the above-captioned matter must be paused until further notice. All scheduled deadlines and appearances are also cancelled. This notification applies to all class cases in the federal sector, including those alleging disparate impact.
In the seven months since case processing was suspended, Plaintiffs Chelette, Boyd, and other class members have been subjected to, or are at risk of, ongoing and escalating sexual harassment that continues to go unremedied at FCC Pollock. They have no information about when, if ever, their case will continue and whether they will be able to receive injunctive relief from the EEOC for their ongoing harm. Plaintiff Chelette and the other class agents have complied with their obligations under the EEOC’s regulations but the Commission refuses to do the same.