Bloom v. Harvey
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139858
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Bloom, a former Army Corps of Engineers civil engineer, sues Secretary McHugh and Commander Van Antwerp alleging Title VII retaliation/harassment, CSRA violations, and WPA claims arising from 1996–2004 employment at the Baltimore District and Spring Valley project.
- She raised environmental/public health concerns about Spring Valley (1996–1998) and faced alleged retaliation, including reassignment and unfavorable actions.
- Key events include 2002 DOJ inquiry into Spring Valley, 2003–2004 workplace tensions with management, 2004 thirty-day suspension for lack of candor/other charges, and multiple EEO complaints culminating in this federal suit filed September 2005.
- The Court granted the motion to dismiss in part and awarded summary judgment for certain CSRA/Title VII claims; it dismissed remaining counts, including WPA, retaliation, and hostile environment claims.
- Procedural posture involved a Rule 12(c)/Rule 56-style evaluation, with res judicata and mixed-case CSRA considerations shaping the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPA claim barred by res judicata | Bloom’s WPA claim is distinct from prior appeals | Claim preclusion applies because prior actions addressed same nucleus of fact | Yes; claim barred by res judicata |
| CSRA claim viability | CSRA violation supported by the 30-day suspension | Agency complied with Douglas factors; penalty reasonable | Summary judgment for defendants; CSRA claim dismissed |
| Disparate treatment under Title VII (sex discrimination) | Disparate impact evidenced by treatment differences | No admissible comparator and no link to sex established | Count III dismissed for lack of adverse action/causal linkage |
| Retaliation under Title VII | Protected activity (complaints) prompted retaliation | No protected activity shown or causal connection established | Count II dismissed |
| Hostile work environment under Title VII | Widespread harassment including gender-linked incidents | Insufficient link between harassment and gender or protected activity | Count I dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (fact pleading not required; plausibility standard)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1980) (claim preclusion doctrine; final judgment on merits)
- Doe v. Dep’t of Justice, 565 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (nexus/causation in CSA/CSRA contexts; finality standards)
- Ludlum v. Dep’t of Justice, 278 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (lack of candor standard; agency deference in CSRA)