May 18, 2023






In Pro Per



XXX an individual,               Complainant, v. XXX; SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE               Defendants EEOC NO. 530-2021-00005X AGENCY NO. 63-2020-00084-D ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE: NATASHA ABEL     MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOW COMES this day Complainant XXX, Proceeding Pro Se, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which entitles a party to summary judgment as a “matter of law”. In support of the said Motion, Complainant alleges as follows:


On or about July 6, XXX, Complainant submitted her Pre-hearing Statement pursuant to Part 6 of the Memorandum and Scheduling Order dated February 22,XXX. In the Statement, Complainant alleged that discriminated and retaliated against her based on her skin tone.  

On or about July 6, XXX, the Agency filed a Response to Complainant’s Pre-Hearing Statement pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g), and the Memorandum and Scheduling Order dated February 22, XXX. In the response, Agency alleged inter alia that Complainant’s case raised no genuine dispute over any material fact. Agency also argued that Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as she is unable to demonstrate that any of the alleged incidents were based on her color or because of any protected activity.

On or about July 29, XXX, Complainant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pointing out the issues of law involved and how the Agency is liable thereof.

Up to the time of this second Motion for Summary Judgment, a hearing has not been had for the first Motion for Summary Judgment. On or about September 14, XXX, the Administrative Judge emailed the parties to this case and notified them that the scheduled hearing for the Motion for Summary Judgment would be rescheduled because the parties had not done a pre-hearing conference.  

The Agency has not complied fully with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, which necessitates. the instant Motion for Summary Judgment.

  • Agency has failed to respond to Complainant’s message, thus causing unnecessary delays

The purpose of the meet-and-confer requirement is to “force litigants to attempt to resolve, or at least narrow, the disputed issues to prevent the unnecessary waste of time and effort on any given motion.” XXX”.

A district court has the inherent power to discipline parties inside and outside the courtroom if their conduct disrupts the orderly and efficient manner of court proceedings. XXX..

In determining whether a party has failed to answer or produce, a court should treat evasive or incomplete answers or disclosures as failures (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (4)).

In the instant action, Agency has failed to respond to Complainant’s message. Such failure has hampered Complainant’s efforts in the pre-hearing stage of the case, thus causing unnecessary delays. Besides, the Agency’s failure also led to the rescheduling of the hearing date. For that reason, Complainant is entitled to the instant motion.

  1. Complainant is entitled to Judgment in the interest of justice.

The “in the interest of justice” standard has been given broad interpretation by the Courts. It has been used to refer to instances where “an action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” See, Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 615 (1948) (Emphasis added). Further, the “interest of justice” standard requires the court to weigh private factors, such as the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and “public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29-30 (1988) (Emphasis added). The U.S. Supreme Court noted that “bad faith” may be found, not only in the actions that led to the lawsuit, but also in the conduct of the litigation.'” Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 15, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 1951, 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973).

In the instant action, the delay caused by the Agency is made in bad faith, and violates the interest of justice.  For instance, failure of the Agency to respond to Complainant has made the rescheduling of the hearing date, thus causing further delays in the case. Such delays are in the Complainant’s detriment because Complainant has to wait longer to have her case settled by the Court.


 WHEREFORE, the Complainant pray that the court grants her Motion for Summary Judgment for the aforesaid reasons.  

  ____________________________XXX Pro se

Dated this: [ENTER DATE].


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing motion for summary judgment was sent to defendants at their mailing address(es)  , on [ENTER DATE].

Dated This [ENTER DATE].

  ____________________________XXX Pro se

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )