978 F. Supp. 2d 15
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Elizabeth Aviles-Wynkoop, a HUD employee, filed pro se claims in D.C. Superior Court alleging supervisors created a hostile/bullying work environment (harassment, verbal abuse) and sought a TRO and preliminary injunction.
- The U.S. Attorney’s Office issued a Westfall certification that the supervisors were federal employees acting within the scope of their employment; defendants removed the case to federal court and the United States will be substituted as defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2).
- The complaint’s allegations were liberally construed to assert common-law torts (e.g., defamation/assault) and an employment discrimination (hostile work environment/Title VII) claim.
- If the Westfall certification stands, tort claims against the individual defendants are replaced by FTCA claims against the United States, but FECA likely bars FTCA recovery because plaintiff is a federal employee.
- The court found it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Title VII claim as pleaded because she did not name the agency head (the proper defendant) and the APA does not waive immunity for Title VII claims seeking injunctive relief.
- The court denied the TRO: plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm, likely success on the merits (administrative exhaustion not complete), and submitted only conclusory evidence; plaintiff was ordered to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss by Sept. 17, 2013 and was advised how to challenge the Westfall certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tort claims against supervisors remain against individuals after Westfall certification | Aviles-Wynkoop alleges supervisors committed torts (verbal abuse, slander, threat of physical harm) | Westfall certification makes defendants federal employees acting within scope; United States substituted; claims governed by FTCA | Court: Westfall certification triggers substitution; plaintiff may challenge certification; absent successful challenge, Ftca governs and claims likely barred by FECA |
| Whether FECA bars tort claims against the United States by a federal employee | Implicitly seeks tort recovery for workplace injuries | FECA precludes civil actions by federal employees for work-related injuries; thus FTCA recovery barred | Court: If certification stands, FECA will bar plaintiff’s tort claims against the United States |
| Whether Title VII claim properly pleaded and sovereign immunity waived | Plaintiff asserts hostile work environment / employment discrimination (checked on civil cover) | Title VII waiver requires the head of the department be the defendant; plaintiff sued supervisors, not the agency head | Court: Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as pleaded; plaintiff may amend to name proper defendant |
| Whether TRO / preliminary injunction should issue | Plaintiff: ongoing harassment, medical treatment for anxiety/stress, extensive grievances and administrative filings justify immediate relief | Defendants: lack of jurisdictional predicate, plaintiff has not exhausted administrative remedies, and plaintiff submitted no competent evidence of irreparable harm | Court: Denied TRO/PI — plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm or likelihood of success; administrative remedies not exhausted; evidence is conclusory |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction).
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007) (Westfall Act substitution and FTCA governance after certification).
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional).
- Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (procedural rules for challenging Westfall certification and substitution).
- Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 460 U.S. 190 (1983) (FECA’s purpose to preclude FTCA suits by federal employees).
- Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (1976) (Title VII provides the exclusive judicial remedy for federal employment discrimination claims).
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (standards for extraordinary injunctive relief against federal officials).
- Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest factors for injunctions).
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment as a cognizable Title VII claim).
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are liberally construed).