A federal court dismissed a case filed by Ntseh Monikang against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) due to procedural issues surrounding a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The ruling, made by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on September 18, 2026, highlights the importance of following proper procedures when seeking information from federal agencies. This decision affects individuals seeking access to their EEOC charge files, emphasizing the need for compliance with agency regulations.
The case, designated as Civil Action No. 2025-3351, stemmed from Monikang's attempts to obtain documents related to his previous charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC. The ruling underscores how critical it is for individuals to understand the requirements for filing FOIA requests, particularly when it comes to agency-specific regulations.
Monikang's legal troubles began when he filed a charge with the EEOC, which subsequently issued him a right-to-sue letter on December 1, 2023. After the expiration of the 90-day period for filing a lawsuit, Monikang submitted a FOIA request on October 28, 2024, seeking all documents related to his charge. However, the EEOC deemed his request "unperfected" because he did not include a filed copy of a court complaint, as required by the agency's regulations.
The EEOC's regulations state that if a charging party submits a FOIA request after the 90-day period following the issuance of a right-to-sue letter, they must include a filed court complaint to perfect their request. Monikang's FOIA request was denied on November 21, 2024, because he failed to meet this requirement. He subsequently filed an administrative appeal, which was also denied due to procedural deficiencies.
After exhausting administrative options, Monikang filed his lawsuit against the EEOC on September 19, 2025, arguing that the agency wrongfully withheld documents under FOIA. He claimed that the requirement to submit a court complaint before obtaining documents was inconsistent with standard FOIA procedures.
In her ruling, Judge Chutkan granted the EEOC's motion to dismiss, stating, "Monikang failed to comply with these procedures and has therefore not exhausted his remedies before bringing this lawsuit." The court emphasized that an agency is not obligated to process a FOIA request that does not comply with its published regulations. The ruling highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when making such requests.
Judge Chutkan noted that Monikang's failure to submit a perfected FOIA request meant that the EEOC had no obligation to respond. She stated, "An agency has no duty to process an unperfected FOIA request, i.e., a request that does not comply with agency procedures." The court concluded that Monikang's claim was unexhausted and therefore dismissed the case without prejudice.
The implications of this ruling are significant for individuals seeking access to their EEOC charge files. It reinforces the necessity of understanding and complying with agency-specific regulations when filing FOIA requests. The decision serves as a reminder that failure to follow proper procedures can result in the dismissal of claims, leaving individuals without the information they seek.
Moving forward, individuals who wish to file FOIA requests with the EEOC must ensure they are aware of the specific requirements outlined in the agency's regulations. This includes submitting a filed court complaint if the request is made after the expiration of the right-to-sue period. Understanding these requirements will help individuals avoid similar pitfalls in the future.
As for Monikang, he has the option to resubmit his FOIA request to the EEOC with the necessary documentation. The court's ruling does not preclude him from pursuing his request through the proper channels. However, it remains to be seen whether he will choose to do so or if he will pursue other legal avenues.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeal or other related cases pending. However, the dismissal without prejudice allows Monikang the opportunity to correct his procedural missteps and potentially seek the information he desires from the EEOC.