51 F. Supp. 3d 97
D.D.C.2014Background
- Davis, a probationary CRS employee, sued James H. Billington in his official capacity, and Mulhollan in his individual capacity; Mulhollan has been dismissed, leaving Billington as defendant.
- Davis published opinion pieces in November 2009 (Wall Street Journal; Washington Post) about military commissions; pieces did not reference CRS or Library of Congress and had no disclaimer.
- Mulhollan met with Davis and issued a formal admonishment (Nov. 13, 2009) and then informed Davis of termination (Nov. 20, 2009) with a December 21, 2009 termination date.
- Davis was subsequently terminated from CRS and placed in a thirty-day temporary Special Advisor role; he sought injunctive relief and, potentially, reinstatement, back pay, and front pay.
- The parties dispute CSRA preclusion; Davis argues CSRA does not bar constitutional claims and that district court review remains available; the Court must determine jurisdiction and the availability of relief, including reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSRA precludes judicial review of constitutional claims? | Davis argues CSRA does not bar district-court review of colorable constitutional claims. | Billington argues Elgin precludes district-court review of such claims under CSRA. | CSRA does not completely foreclose such review; jurisdiction exists for injunctive relief. |
| Whether the Court may award reinstatement or monetary damages | Davis seeks reinstatement and back/front pay under Back Pay Act or other relief. | Defendant argues reinstatement may be barred by after-acquired evidence and monetary damages are barred by sovereign immunity and CSRA. | Reinstatement remains possible; front and back pay are denied; monetary damages are denied. |
| Whether the First Amendment claims survive summary judgment | Davis contends his First Amendment rights were violated in light of his speech and position. | Defendant contends speech impairment and disruption justify dismissal. | Summary judgment on First Amendment claims denied; dispute remains for trial. |
| Whether the Fifth Amendment due process claim is viable | Davis asserts the Library’s policies were vague as applied to his outside speech. | Defendant contends no due process violation and no protected liberty interest. | Summary judgment for defendant on Fifth Amendment claim; Davis cannot state a Fifth Amendment liberty interest in free speech. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012) (CSRA precludes district-court review for some claims but not all constitutional challenges)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994) (used to assess preclusion of judicial review in administrative contexts)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (requires clear indication when Congress intends to preclude judicial review of constitutional claims)
- Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987) (relevance of speech impairing discipline or harmony in Pickering-type analysis)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (addressing government employer’s consideration of speech in the workplace)
- Keeffe v. Library of Congress, 777 F.2d 1573 (1985) (premier D.C. Cir. case on Library speech policies and notice)