Linda Jacobs v. Michael Vrobel
406 U.S. App. D.C. 286
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Linda Jacobs, a long-time GSA employee, sued her supervisor Michael Vrobel in D.C. Superior Court for defamation and intentional interference with her attempts to obtain outside employment.
- The Attorney General (through his delegate) certified under the Westfall Act that Vrobel was acting within the scope of his federal employment; the case was removed to federal district court and the United States was substituted as defendant.
- The United States moved to dismiss; Vrobel submitted an affidavit saying he acted within the scope of employment when responding to reference requests.
- The district court concluded Vrobel acted within the scope of his employment, dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Jacobs had not exhausted FTCA administrative remedies and the FTCA did not waive immunity for her torts.
- Jacobs appealed, arguing Vrobel’s conduct fell outside the scope of employment and that she should have been allowed limited discovery on the scope issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vrobel acted within the scope of employment when allegedly giving negative references | Jacobs: Responding to reference calls and defaming her was outside scope (personal malice; intent to keep her at GSA) | Govt/Vrobel: Responding to employer reference inquiries is a work-related act; certification is prima facie evidence of scope | Court: Vrobel acted within scope—responding to reference calls is the kind of conduct authorized and was at least partly to serve GSA |
| Whether plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to rebut the AG’s Westfall certification | Jacobs: Complaint pleads facts (malice, hostile environment, interference) showing actions were personal and outside scope | Govt: Allegations are conclusory and focus on the tort, not the underlying work-related dispute; certification unrebutted | Court: Allegations were conclusory or unrelated; Jacobs failed to allege specific facts to rebut certification |
| Whether Jacobs was entitled to limited discovery on scope-of-employment | Jacobs: Limited discovery needed to resolve factual disputes about scope | Govt: No factual dispute in complaint that would justify discovery | Held: No discovery warranted because complaint did not allege sufficient facts to establish actions were outside scope |
| Whether dismissal was proper on FTCA jurisdictional grounds after substitution | Jacobs: (implicit) claims should proceed against individual or Westfall certification invalid | Govt: With certification, U.S. substituted and FTCA governs; Jacobs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and FTCA does not waive immunity for these torts | Court: Dismissal affirmed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (FTCA exhaustion and immunity defects) |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (discusses Westfall Act purpose and effect of certification)
- Ballenger v. Council on American-Islamic Relations, 444 F.3d 659 (scope-of-employment: defamatory statements made during job-related communications can be within scope)
- Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210 (plaintiff may rebut certification with specific factual allegations; criminal or coerced acts may show actions outside scope)
- Majano v. United States, 469 F.3d 138 (distinguishes employer-related acts from subsequent independent violent acts outside scope)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must plead factual content making liability plausible rather than conclusory)