Under the Administrative Procedure Act, we have plenary power to review an ALJ's factual and legal conclusions de novo. See 5 U.S.C.A. §557 (b) (West 1996); Masek v. Cadle Co., ARB No. 97-069, ALJ No. 95-WPC-1, slip op. at 7 (ARB Apr. 28, 2000).

A. Whether the ALJ erred in recommending that the complaints be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

   Hasan, appearing pro se, contends that the ALJ erred in dismissing his complaints. Specifically, Hasan asserts that his allegations alone are sufficient to establish a prima facie case and, in any event, he would have been able to establish the facts in support of his claim if the ALJ had granted him discovery and a hearing. This is the same argument that we addressed in Hasan II.

   As in the prior cases, Hasan has done nothing more than submit his resume to Respondents and then allege that the Respondents have discriminated against him because he remains unemployed. This naked allegation is insufficient to support a claim of discrimination under the ERA. A complainant cannot simply "file a conclusory complaint not well-grounded in fact, conduct a fishing expedition for discovery, and only then amend the complaint in order to finally set forth well-pleaded allegations." Oreman Sales v. Matshushita Elec. Corp., 768 F. Supp. 1174 (E.D. La. 1991). If the complainant fails to allege a prima facie case, the matter is subject to immediate dismissal. See Lovermi v. Bell South Mobility, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 136 (S.D. Fla. 1997). We find that Hasan has failed to allege a prima facie case and, therefore, concur with the ALJ that these frivolous complaints should be dismissed.

B. Whether the Board should strike Hasan's initial briefs.

   Citing the ARB's recent Order striking an attorney's brief in Pickett v. TVA, ARB No. 00-076, ALJ Nos. 99-CAA-25, 00-CAA-9 (ARB Nov. 2, 2000), ComEd has moved to strike Hasan's initial briefs in these cases "because they are infected with abusive and impertinent attacks that have no place in settings before this Tribunal." Respondent Commonwealth Edison Company's Motion to Strike Complainant's Brief at 1. ComEd correctly notes that Hasan's brief devotes significant text to heaping abuse on the Department of Labor, the ALJ, various attorneys and others.

   In Pickett, we granted a motion to strike the complainant's brief and noted our concern that vitriolic attacks on administrative law judges are inconsistent with a lawyer's ethical obligations, and in any event cannot substitute for sound legal argument:

While counsel . . . has the right to criticize rulings of the ALJ with which his client disagrees, he has no right to engage in disrespectful and offensive personal attacks upon the ability and integrity of the ALJ; such attacks violate counsel's "professional obligation to demonstrate respect for the courts." [Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp., ARB Nos. 99-054/064, ALJ Nos. 98-ERA-40/42, (ARB Sept. 29, 2000)] at 6. Accord ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble, Rules 3.5 and 8.2 (1999).

The requirement that counsel refrain from immaterial, offensive excoriation of the ALJs before whom he appears, does not conflict with the counsel's ethical duty to represent his clients "with zeal and fidelity within the rules." Rhesa Hawkins Barkdale, The Role of Civility in Appellate Advocacy, 50 South Carolina Law Review, 573, 577 (1999). Quite to the contrary, "the use of odiums, sarcasm, and vituperative remarks have no place in a brief and are wholly unwarranted. Frankly, resort to the use of such statements is an indication of a lack of confidence in the law and the facts to support the position of the one using them." State ex rel. Dyer v. Union Electric Co., 312 S.W.2d 151,154 (Mo. Ct. App. 1958). A brief containing such invective ordinarily should be stricken. Accord Dranow v. United States, 307 F.2d 545, 549 (8th Cir. 1962).

   If Hasan's briefs in these cases had been filed by an attorney, we would not hesitate to strike them as inconsistent with a lawyer's ethical obligations. However, because Hasan is a pro se litigant and is not a lawyer, we allow him considerably more leeway, and therefore decline to grant ComEd's motion to strike his briefs in these cases. We agree with ComEd, however, that it is reasonable for a court to demand that all litigants including pro se litigants comport themselves with a measure of civility and respect for the tribunals that hear their cases. Among pro se litigants, this proposition applies particularly to litigants such as Hasan, who has significant litigation experience. Not only is vituperative behavior by a litigant unwarranted and inappropriate, it ultimately is self-defeating because it detracts from a complainant's ability to make a sound legal argument in support of his case.