Kittner v. Gates
783 F. Supp. 2d 170
D.D.C.2011Background
- Kittner sues Gates in his official capacity under Title VII and asserts a Bivens claim against named DIA/DOD personnel in their individual capacities.
- This Court previously dismissed the Bivens claim in an April 28, 2010 order; plaintiff moves for reconsideration on May 26, 2010.
- Plaintiff contends newly produced government materials show defendants acted unlawfully, outside the scope of employment, and retaliated against her.
- The court reviews the motion under Rule 59(e) and 60(b) standards, requiring intervening law, new evidence, or a clear error to disturb the judgment.
- The court holds that the new evidence is cumulative and does not alter the April 28, 2010 dismissal; reconsideration is denied on that basis.
- Plaintiff also presses theories about Title VII preemption of the Bivens claim and the possibility of obtaining discovery from individual capacity defendants, which the court addresses and rejects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new evidence justifies reconsideration of the Bivens dismissal | New evidence shows unlawful, outside-scope acts by defendants affecting employment. | New evidence is cumulative and cannot change the prior ruling. | Denial of reconsideration. |
| Does Title VII preemption defeat the Bivens claim | Title VII does not preempt the Bivens claim when defendants acted unlawfully outside scope. | Title VII preempts the Bivens claim because the underlying disputes are Title VII-discriminatory employment claims. | Bivens remains presumptively preempted by Title VII. |
| Does CSRA preclude a Bivens remedy here | CSRA preclusion does not apply to excepted civil servants. | CSRA applies as a comprehensive remedial system for personnel actions, precluding Bivens. | CSRA precludes Bivens relief; reconsideration denied on this basis. |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to discovery from defendants in their individual capacity | Discovery from individual defendants is necessary and should be permitted. | Discovery from individual capacity defendants is unnecessary given dismissal; government will permit broad discovery anyway. | Discovery from individual capacity defendants is not warranted for reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 (1976) (Title VII provides exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination)
- Ethnic Employees of Library of Congress v. Boorstin, 751 F.2d 1405 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Title VII preempts other remedies for discrimination in federal employment)
- Rochon v. FBI, 691 F. Supp. 1548 (D.D.C. 1988) (Title VII preemption of Bivens claims for discrimination claims)
- Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (CSRA creates comprehensive remedial system; precludes certain Bivens actions)
- Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (CSRA precludes Bivens claims for personnel actions even if CSRA has no remedy)