194 F. Supp. 3d 25
D.D.C.2016Background
- Aaron Darnell Grant, a former IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent, was removed from his position effective January 30, 2013; he alleges discrimination, retaliation, due process violations, and disability (alcohol dependency) claims and seeks reinstatement and back pay.
- Grant appealed agency removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); an administrative judge upheld removal, MSPB reversed on due-process ground once, Treasury reinstated Grant, then proposed and effected a second removal which was later upheld by MSPB after administrative proceedings.
- After MSPB’s final order (which informed Grant of his right to file a district-court civil action against the agency), Grant sued Secretary Jacob Lew (Treasury), MSPB, and MSPB Chairman Susan Tsui Grundmann in district court proceeding pro se.
- Defendants moved to dismiss MSPB and Grundmann: Grundmann asserted judicial immunity for adjudicative acts and Grant conceded he did not sue her personally; MSPB argued it is not a proper defendant for employment-discrimination or Rehabilitation Act claims and is subject to exclusive appellate review in the Federal Circuit.
- The district court held MSPB and Chairman Grundmann are improper defendants: (1) Grundmann immune in her judicial capacity and not sued personally; (2) statutory discrimination claims (Title VII/Rehab Act) and related remedies lie against the employing agency (Treasury), not MSPB; (3) MSPB’s orders are reviewable under the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction, and APA review is unavailable where an adequate remedy against the agency exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSPB and its Chairman are proper defendants for Grant’s employment/discrimination and due-process claims | Grant contends MSPB and the Chairman mishandled his appeal, violated due process, and ignored facts supporting illegal removal | MSPB and Chairman argue they are not proper defendants: Chairman immune for adjudicative acts; MSPB is not the employer and is not liable under Title VII/Rehab Act; Federal Circuit has exclusive review over MSPB final orders | Court: Dismissed MSPB and Chairman as defendants — Chairman immune in her adjudicative role; MSPB not a proper defendant for employment discrimination/rehab or due-process claims challenging an agency removal |
| Whether Grant may seek judicial review of MSPB’s final order in district court under the APA | Grant labels MSPB’s Final Order arbitrary and seeks district-court relief | Defendants argue APA review is barred because an adequate remedy exists against the employing agency and exclusive appellate review of MSPB final orders lies in the Federal Circuit | Court: APA challenge dismissed; district court cannot review or compel MSPB action where statute provides other remedies and exclusive Federal Circuit jurisdiction applies |
| Whether Title VII / Rehabilitation Act claims can be brought against MSPB | Grant’s pro se filings assert discrimination and retaliation broadly against all defendants | Defendants argue statutory scheme permits suit only against the head of the department/agency where discriminatory acts occurred (i.e., Treasury) | Court: Claims under Title VII/Rehab Act must be brought against Treasury, not MSPB; MSPB dismissed |
| Whether Grant adequately pleaded a Fifth Amendment due-process claim against MSPB | Grant alleges due-process violations by MSPB in processing his appeal | Defendants note Grant’s allegations amount to disagreement with MSPB’s decision, not actionable due-process claims against the Board | Court: Due-process claim against MSPB dismissed as insufficient and preempted by statutory remedies against the agency |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (judicial immunity principles for adjudicative officials)
- Hackley v. Roudebush, 520 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (Title VII defendant must be head of department/agency where acts occurred)
- Woodruff v. McPhie, 593 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing suit against MSPB for employment-discrimination processing)
- Brown v. Gen. Serv. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (1976) (Title VII provides exclusive judicial remedy for federal employment discrimination)
- Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (court may take judicial notice of official public documents)
- Kittner v. Gates, 708 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2010) (dismissing constitutional due-process claim preempted by Title VII)