66 F. Supp. 3d 69
D.D.C.2014Background
- Bland, an African-American male, sued DHS Secretary for Title VII discrimination and retaliation.
- Bland worked for FEMA OCSO May 2011–March 2012 and required TS-CSI clearance for his role.
- Interim secret clearance was granted; permanent clearance procured through DHS/FEMA processing.
- OIG investigated bribery allegations Bland allegedly made false; investigation did not produce evidence supporting those allegations.
- Bland was placed on administrative leave (July 2011); later TS-CSI clearance granted (July 2011) but DHS OSCO suspended clearance (Sept. 2011).
- Bland was suspended from work and resigned (March 2012); FEMA denied discrimination in administrative decision (Jan. 2013); Bland asserted five counts (I–V) alleging discrimination/retaliation tied to security clearance actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Egan bars review of security clearance decisions in a Title VII case | Bland contends discrimination claims can be reviewed despite Egan. | Egan precludes courts from reviewing security-clearance decisions. | Yes; Egan bars these claims. |
| Whether Count I (administrative leave) states a Title VII discrimination claim | Bland claims adverse action based on investigation. | Administrative leave is not an adverse employment action under Title VII. | Count I dismissed for lack of adverse action. |
| Whether Counts II–V are reviewable given Egan and related rulings | Counts II–V should be reviewable or separable from clearance decisions. | Review would require evaluating the agency’s clearance determinations. | All four counts dismissed; Counts II limited per Rattigan not applicable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) (security-clearance decisions not reviewable by courts)
- Ryan v. Reno, 168 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (review barred when adjudicating security clearances; may require pretext scutinies)
- Rattigan v. Holder, 689 F.3d 764 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (limits review to knowingly false reporting to protect security functions)
- Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193 (9th Cir. 1995) (pretext not to undermine security judgments)
- Hall v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 476 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 2007) (review of security-clearance-related claims limited by context)