319 F.Supp.3d 207
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiff Soheila Jangjoo was an as-needed contractor for the Voice of America Persian News Network (PNN) from 2012–2015 and alleges she typically received ~18 assignments/month but was later reduced.
- In July 2015 Jangjoo signed an online petition seeking reinstatement of a popular PNN host, Siamak Dehghanpour, who had been removed after an on-air incident.
- PNN faced documented budget shortfalls in 2015; management recommended reducing contractor days and specifically calculated that reducing Jangjoo’s assignments would extend available funds through early 2016.
- Supervisors documented repeated performance and attendance problems for Jangjoo, and recommended reducing her hours or probation prior to the petition-related events.
- In November 2015, Jangjoo’s assignments were reduced and she had a confrontation where she allegedly threatened self-harm; security removed her and recommended a bar from the premises. It is undisputed that Sieg did not participate in the escort or in the decision to bar Jangjoo.
- Jangjoo sued Sieg in her individual capacity under Bivens, alleging First Amendment retaliation (reduced assignments) and Fifth Amendment due process (bar from building); Sieg moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of Bivens remedy for First Amendment retaliation | Jangjoo seeks money and injunctive relief under Bivens for retaliatory reduction in assignments after signing petition | Sieg: Bivens should not be extended to First Amendment claims; special factors counsel hesitation | No Bivens remedy — court declines to extend Bivens to this First Amendment context |
| Causation for retaliation claim (link between petition and reduction) | Jangjoo: signing petition led to reduced assignments and Sieg told her she was distrusted for signing it | Sieg: reductions driven by documented performance issues and budget cuts; Sieg had no role in initiating reductions | No genuine dispute of material fact that petition caused the reductions; plaintiff’s evidence is conclusory/self-serving and timing/records support non-retaliatory reasons |
| Qualified immunity for Sieg | N/A — Jangjoo says constitutional rights violated | Sieg: alternatively entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation by her | Sieg entitled to qualified immunity because Jangjoo cannot show a violation (no causal link) |
| Fifth Amendment due process (bar from building / de facto termination) | Jangjoo: Sieg barred her from BBG and denied process | Sieg: she did not participate in removal/bar decision; security, HR, and others made those decisions | Summary judgment for Sieg — no Bivens remedy and no genuine issue that Sieg was involved in bar/termination decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy against federal officers in limited Fourth Amendment context)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (refusal to extend Bivens; framework for identifying new Bivens contexts and special factors)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Bivens recognized in Fifth Amendment gender-discrimination context)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens recognized in Eighth Amendment medical-treatment context)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (limits on supervisory liability; no respondeat superior for constitutional claims)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (noting Court has never held Bivens extends to First Amendment claims)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (declining Bivens in federal employment context where comprehensive statutory scheme exists)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (test for whether employee speech addresses a matter of public concern)
- Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242 (elements for First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Bowie v. Maddox, 642 F.3d 1122 (public-concern analysis for employee speech)