Bobbi-Anne Toy v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8673
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Toy, a DynCorp contractor, worked as a data and intelligence analyst at the FBI Beaumont office and received commendations.
- She was offered conditional FBI employment but was later subject to negative actions after a new Beaumont director, Davis, took over.
- Davis prepared a memo detailing Toy’s alleged security breaches, including unapproved undercover work and misrepresentation as FBI staff.
- Toy’s direct supervisor revoked her office access and allegedly her security clearance; DynCorp terminated her employment after negative references.
- Toy filed an EEOC complaint and sued the government under Title VII, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation.
- The district court dismissed, citing the national-security exemption; the Fifth Circuit affirms, holding the exemption bars review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2000e-2(g) bars Title VII review. | Toy argues no Title VII relief due to national-security exemption. | Government argues subsection (g) exempts national-security-related actions from Title VII review. | Yes; §2000e-2(g) bars review for national-security access decisions. |
| Whether Egan extends to building access determinations. | Toy contends Egan applies to security-clearance-like decisions, not just clearances. | Government contends Egan precludes review of security-related access decisions. | No; Egan does not apply to building access decisions, which may be reviewed absent (g). |
| Whether national-security programs EO 12829 and EO 12968 create a §2000e-2(g) basis for exemption. | Toy argues there is no applicable program limiting review. | Government asserts these EOs create national-security programs restricting access decisions. | Yes; both EOs create national-security programs that trigger the exemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. FBI, 71 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 1995) (intrusion into executive branch over national-security matters is impermissible)
- Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) (broad executive discretion to determine access to national security information)
- Brazil v. United States Department of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193 (9th Cir. 1995) (treats PRP certification as equivalent to security clearance when relied upon by the parties)
- Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145 (4th Cir. 1996) (investigation tied to clearance falls under Egan, not helpful here)
- Beattie v. United States, 949 F.2d 1092 (10th Cir. 1991) (hint of Egan applicability to access decisions, not decisive)
- Berry v. Conyers, 692 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Egan scope discussed; en banc rehearing occurred)