Spencer v. Mass Against Discrimination et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JEROME SPENCER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, et al.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action 26-cv-10834-IT
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
February 17, 2026
TALWANI, D.J.
Plaintiff Jerome Spencer (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint [Doc. No.
1], Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2], and Motion for Court to Deny
Any Extensions [Doc. No. 3]. This action concerns an administrative complaint of employment
discrimination Plaintiff filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
(“MCAD”) against Intercontinental Hotel (“Intercontinental”). For the reasons set forth below,
the court will GRANT the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISS this
action without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing a separate action against Intercontinental for
employment discrimination.
I. 	Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Upon review of the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2], the
court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated he is without income or assets to pay
the filing fee. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Case 1:26-cv-10834-IT Document 5 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
II. 	Review of the Complaint
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may conduct a preliminary
review of his Complaint and dismiss the pleading if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court may also sua sponte consider relevant
jurisdictional issues. See Guillemard-Ginoria v. Contreras-Gomez, 585 F.3d 508, 517-18 (1st
Cir. 2009). The court construes Plaintiff’s pleading liberally because he is proceeding pro se. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
A. 	Plaintiff’s Claims Against the MCAD
According to Plaintiff, he submitted an administrative complaint of employment
discrimination against Intercontinental on March 27, 2025. Compl. at 4 [Doc. No. 1]. On August
15, 2025, after the MCAD granted Intercontinental an extension of time to respond to the
complaint, Plaintiff received Intercontinental’s position statement. Id. Plaintiff emailed MCAD
in October and December 2025 to inquire into the status of the investigation into his case, and on
both occasions MCAD responded that the investigation was ongoing. [Doc. No. 1-3 at 1-2]. He
has not received any other communications from Intercontinental or the MCAD regarding his
case. [Doc. No. 1-4 at 1].
Plaintiff claims that the MCAD “failed to enforce” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his
Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Id. He seeks “compensatory damages in the amount
of $30[,]000 front and back pay.” Id.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the MCAD
because this state agency is not subject to suit in a federal district court for its alleged failure to
timely investigate Plaintiff’s complaint. Under the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity, it
is recognized that States (including their departments, agencies, and officials acting in their
Case 1:26-cv-10834-IT Document 5 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
official capacities) have immunity from suit in a federal court unless the State has consented to
be sued in federal court or Congress has overridden the State’s immunity. See Virginia Off. for
Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 253 (2011).1 (“A]bsent waiver or valid abrogation,
federal courts may not entertain a private person’s suit against a State. Here, Plaintiff has not
stated any claim for which the Congress has abrogated, or the Commonwealth has waived, its
immunity. Therefore, he has failed to state a claim against the MCAD upon which relief may be
granted in federal court. See, e.g., Urella v. Verizon New England, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 3d 134,
137-39 (D. Mass. 2023) (discussing the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the MCAD).
B. 	Plaintiff’s Claims Against Intercontinental
Plaintiff also names Intercontinental as a Defendant and asserts that “under title 2 1964 of
the civil rights act [he] was denied equal Employment based on [his] color and race under [his]
protected class Afro American citizen.” [Doc. No. 1-4 at 1]. Plaintiff states no facts in support of
this claim, however, focusing instead on the MCAD’s alleged failure to investigate. Accordingly,
his claim against Intercontinental is dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
If Plaintiff seeks to proceed with a civil action against Intercontinental rather than waiting
for the MCAD to conclude its investigation, he may so. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if he
seeks to proceed with a civil action, he must notify the MCAD. See M.G.L. ch. 151B, § 9. In that
event, his complaint before the MCAD will be dismissed without prejudice, and he will be
barred from subsequently bringing a complaint on the same matter before the MCAD. See id.
1 The sovereign immunity of a state is often referred to as “Eleventh Amendment immunity”
because the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution “confirm[ed] the structural
understanding that States entered the Union with their sovereign immunity intact.” Va. Off. For
Prot., 563. U.S. at 253.
Case 1:26-cv-10834-IT Document 5 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring an unlawful employment discrimination
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before the investigation of his claim has
concluded, he must first obtain a Notice of Right to Sue letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
III. 	Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby orders:
1. 	The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED.
2. 	This action is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff
bringing a separate employment discrimination lawsuit against Intercontinental.
3. 	The Motion for Court to Deny Any Extensions [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Dated: February 17, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-10834-IT Document 5 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4