107 F. Supp. 3d 1161
W.D. Wash.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (pro se) are former probationary U.S. Customs Inspectors who previously lost Title VII suits challenging their 2003 terminations; they now allege the Agency interfered with EEO investigations by concealing evidence and tampering with documents and witnesses.
- Plaintiffs say they discovered evidence of the alleged interference by April 2009 and filed EEO contacts/charges in 2009; they also previously filed untimely Rule 60 motions to vacate earlier adverse judgments.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing res judicata, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and untimeliness; plaintiffs sought leave to amend to add constitutional and other claims and invoked Rule 60 relief for fraud on the court.
- The Court considered the record, plaintiffs’ surreply and exhibits, and found plaintiffs’ discrimination/retaliation claims barred or untimely, Rule 60 relief unjustified, and constitutional or discovery-based claims nonviable or preempted.
- The Court granted summary judgment for defendant, denied Rule 60 relief, and found amendment futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata | New allegations relate to same termination/EEO events but rely on newly discovered evidence | Prior judgments and related filings bar relitigation | Court: did not fully resolve res judicata; noted many claims could be barred but granted SJ on other grounds |
| Exhaustion / timeliness of EEO contact | Plaintiffs contend April 2009 letter to Acting Commissioner started EEO process | Plaintiffs failed to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of discovery and did not timely file in court | Court: April letter did not show intent to initiate EEO process; retaliation claims are time-barred |
| Timeliness / filing in federal court | Refiled EEO allegations after EEOC dismissals and then sued | Repeating time-barred EEOC allegations does not revive untimely claims | Court: plaintiffs failed to file timely in district court; claims barred |
| Rule 60 / fraud on the court | Plaintiffs seek to vacate prior judgments for alleged Agency fraud in EEO investigations | Denials of prior Rule 60 motions were untimely; allegations do not show fraud on the court by officers or clear-and-convincing evidence | Court: Rule 60(b) relief untimely and Rule 60(d)(3) relief not shown; denied |
| Due process / constitutional claims | Plaintiffs assert procedural due process violations during EEO proceedings | CSRA preemption and lack of property interest for probationary employees bar constitutional claims | Court: probationary employees lack protected property interest; claims fail |
| Discovery-violation claim | Plaintiffs assert a claim based on alleged discovery violations in earlier litigation | No recognized cause of action to sue over prior discovery-rule violations | Court: amendment to add such claim would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (res judicata bars claims raised or could have been raised in prior action)
- Frank v. United Airlines, 216 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2000) (elements for claim preclusion and privity analysis)
- Kraus v. Presidio Trust, 572 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (what contact constitutes initiating EEO process)
- Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (EEO counselor contact deadline is jurisdictional for federal employee discrimination claims)
- Beggerly v. United States, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) (independent Rule 60 actions reserved for extraordinary injustices)
- Chapman v. United States, 642 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2011) (fraud on the court standard requires scheme to improperly influence the court)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)