Lee v. United States Agency for International Development, 859 F.3d 74

Jim Lee, a contractor employed through firms (2008–2014), alleges national-origin discrimination after denial of security clearance and terminations at USAID (2013) and NOAA (2014).
Lee filed EEO/EEOC complaints asserting he was fired because he and his family are from China; his EEOC complaint named SSAI (the contractor), not NOAA.
During NOAA's EEO inquiry, a NOAA official allegedly told the EEO counselor that SSAI—not NOAA—terminated Lee; SSAI denied that account to Lee.
Lee sued USAID and NOAA in district court alleging Title VII discrimination and that NOAA violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by making false statements during the EEO investigation.
The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the agencies, dismissing Title VII claims (for failure to exhaust and because Lee was a contractor) and ruling § 1001 does not create a private right of action.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed: it held § 1001 does not imply a private cause of action; Title VII claims against NOAA were dismissed without prejudice (possible tolling/exhaustion); claims against USAID remained dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1001 creates a private right of action	Lee: § 1001 can be enforced civilly against NOAA for false statements in EEO process	Agencies: § 1001 is a criminal statute and does not confer an implied private civil remedy	§ 1001 does not create a private cause of action; dismissal affirmed
Whether Lee may bring Title VII claims against federal agencies as a contractor	Lee: He was effectively a federal employee or otherwise entitled to sue under Title VII	Agencies: Lee was a contractor (not a federal employee) and therefore not covered; also failed to exhaust against agencies	Court: Unclear on employee status; exhaustion failure fatal; NOAA claim dismissed without prejudice (tolling may permit refiling); USAID claim dismissed with prejudice
Whether Lee exhausted administrative remedies for NOAA	Lee: He contacted EEOC/EEO and pursued complaints; counselor investigated	Agencies: His EEOC complaint sued only SSAI, not NOAA, so did not exhaust against NOAA	Held: EEOC filing against SSAI did not effectively exhaust claims against NOAA; dismissal without prejudice to allow potential timely refiling if tolling applies
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice	Lee: Sought relief on merits and statutory remedies	Agencies: Dismissal appropriate given procedural and jurisdictional defects	Court: Modified dismissal: NOAA claim without prejudice (possible tolling); USAID claim with prejudice (no timely exhaustion attempted)

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (statutory rights of action require clear congressional intent)
Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (rare to imply private right of action; start with statute's text and structure)
Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695 (historical background of § 1001 and its scope)
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (factors for implying a private cause of action)
Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank, 511 U.S. 164 (courts wary of implying private remedies from criminal statutes)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pleading standard; accept complaint allegations as true)