Armstrong v. Thompson
759 F. Supp. 2d 89
D.D.C.2011Background
- Armstrong, a former Assistant Special Agent in Charge at TIGTA, sues Thompson and Sutkus, former TIGTA employees, for torts based on six anonymous letters alleging Armstrong’s misconduct.
- The letters to USDA were sent during August 2007 after Armstrong accepted a USDA job offer and during TIGTA’s internal investigation of him.
- Thompson admitted she sent the USDA letters; Sutkus knew of the letters but denies assisting in preparing/sending them.
- USDA rescinded Armstrong’s employment offer after receipt of the letters.
- Contreras of the U.S. Attorney’s Office denied certification that Thompson/Sutkus acted within the scope of their employment; the case was removed for review, and the court proceeded to determine the scope of employment issue only.
- The court ultimately held Thompson’s conduct fell outside the scope of her TIGTA employment and denied discovery, remanding the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of employment under Westfall Act | Armstrong argues actions were within scope | Defendants contend actions were outside scope | Thompson’s actions outside scope |
| Authorized time and space within Restatement test | Time/space limits supported by dispatch of letters | Time/space not substantially within limits | Not satisfied; conduct not substantially within limits |
| Acts actuated by a purpose to serve the master | Actions served TIGTA's interests | Actions not motivated to serve master | Not actuated by a purpose to serve the master |
| Discovery on scope of employment | Discovery denied; no rebuttal facts presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Majano v. United States, 469 F.3d 138 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Restatement framework for scope of employment)
- Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (limits on Westfall Act discovery; scope issue)
- Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (scope determination framework)
- Haddon v. United States, 68 F.3d 1420 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Restatement-based test for foreseeability and incidental conduct)
- Sigal Constr. Corp. v. Stanbury, 586 A.2d 1204 (D.C. 1991) (implied authority within scope of employment)
- Schecter v. Merchants Home Delivery, 892 A.2d 415 (D.C. 2006) (general nature/authorized conduct prong)
- Anderson v. United States, 364 Fed.Appx. 920 (5th Cir. 2010) (similar facts supporting outside-scope finding)