Bowles v. United States
685 F. App'x 21
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brian Bowles sued Rosi O’Connell (a USPS postmaster) for alleged defamatory statements that he assaulted her; the United States had been substituted as defendant under the Westfall Act via Attorney General delegation.
- The district court partially struck (decertified) the Westfall Act scope-of-employment certification as to some of O’Connell’s statements, allowing those claims to proceed against O’Connell personally.
- Defendants (U.S., Rosi and Dennis O’Connell) appealed only the portions of the district court’s order that decertified certification for certain statements; Bowles defended the partial decertification and argued lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- Issue presented: whether specific categories of alleged defamatory statements were made within the scope of O’Connell’s federal employment under Vermont respondeat superior law (Restatement (Second) of Agency §228).
- The Second Circuit held that appellate jurisdiction exists for collateral review of partial decertification and then affirmed decertification for some statements and reversed it for others, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this interlocutory appeal is reviewable | Bowles: order is intertwined with merits because falsity controls scope | Defendants: Westfall decertification is a collateral order reviewable even if merits overlap | Held: Appealable under collateral-order doctrine; scope inquiry is distinct from falsity/merits (affirm jurisdiction) |
| Whether allegations of falsity remove statements from scope | Bowles: false statements are outside scope so certification improper | Defendants: truth/falsity is merits, not for scope determination on certification | Held: Rejected Bowles; falsity allegations do not resolve certification; scope analyzed without accepting allegations of falsity |
| Scope: report to postmaster relief about April 2012 incident | Bowles: reporting to a non-supervisory co-worker is personal, not within scope | Defendants: postmaster relief performed supervisory duties; reporting required by USPS policy | Held: Reversed decertification — report to postmaster relief is within scope (certification reinstated) |
| Scope: reports to police and supervisors about October 2012 off-duty incident | Bowles: off-duty incident at home not a postal matter, so reports are personal | Defendants: USPS policy requires reporting coworker violence to police/supervisors even if off-premises | Held: Reversed decertification — reports to police and supervisors are within scope (certification reinstated) |
| Scope: statements to non-supervisory co-workers about April 2012 incident | Bowles: non-supervisory disclosures are personal and not authorized | Defendants: argued employer interest in dissemination | Held: Affirmed decertification — statements to non-supervisory co-workers not within scope |
| Scope: statements to newspaper reporter about both incidents | Bowles: media statements exceed scope | Defendants: as local media representative she could speak for USPS | Held: Affirmed decertification — she was expressly instructed not to speak to media; media statements were personal |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (Sup. Ct.) (Westfall certification collateral-order review; scope inquiry distinct from merits)
- Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (Sup. Ct.) (certification subject to de novo judicial review)
- McHugh v. Univ. of Vt., 966 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.) (Westfall Act scope-of-employment analysis)
- Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir.) (certification as collateral order; discovery pending certification review)
- Leitner v. Westchester Cmty. Coll., 779 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for sovereign-immunity legal conclusions and factual findings)
- Balintulo v. Daimler AG, 727 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.) (lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedent rather than reinterpret it)