McKoy v. Spencer
271 F. Supp. 3d 25
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- McKoy, a former Navy dentist, had her clinical privileges suspended, was barred from practicing in the Navy, and ultimately separated; Navy records reported substandard dentistry and other adverse information to third parties.
- McKoy alleges the adverse actions were retaliatory for complaints about her supervisor and asserts First Amendment free-speech retaliation, Fifth Amendment due-process, and Privacy Act claims seeking injunctive relief, record correction, and money damages.
- Defendant (Secretary of the Navy) moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment and sought transfer to the Court of Federal Claims; he also submitted excerpts of an administrative record.
- The government argued sovereign immunity bars McKoy’s constitutional claims, that some claims are non-justiciable or precluded by administrative schemes, and that the Privacy Act disclosures were routine uses.
- The Court held the APA waives sovereign immunity for McKoy’s non-monetary equitable relief under her First and Fifth Amendment claims, but dismissed her requests for money damages under those claims for lack of waiver; it declined to transfer the case and denied dismissal of due process and Privacy Act claims.
- The Court denied summary judgment without prejudice, finding disputed/forthcoming discovery issues and concerns about the completeness of the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | McKoy's Argument | Spencer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars McKoy’s constitutional claims | APA waives sovereign immunity so claims for non-monetary relief may proceed | No waiver alleged in complaint; constitutional claims should be dismissed | APA waives immunity for non-monetary relief; money damages requests dismissed for lack of waiver |
| Whether money damages (back pay, front pay, emotional distress) are recoverable under APA waiver | The monetary relief may be specific relief tied to reinstatement and thus permitted | Monetary remedies are money damages and outside APA waiver | Monetary relief sought is compensatory money damages and barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether case should be transferred to Court of Federal Claims | Case involves constitutional and Privacy Act claims in district court | Transfer appropriate because McKoy seeks money relief | Transfer denied; Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over standalone First, Fifth, and Privacy Act claims |
| Whether First Amendment claim is nonjusticiable or displaced by MWPA | Alleges First Amendment retaliation actionable in district court | MWPA/admin scheme precludes judicial remedy; claim may be nonjusticiable | First Amendment retaliation is justiciable here; MWPA does not bar constitutional claim |
| Whether McKoy has a protected property interest in recouped incentive pay | Recouped incentive pay already received creates property interest requiring due process | No protected interest in continued military benefits; claim fails | Court refuses to dismiss; due process claim survives pleading stage regarding recoupment |
| Whether Privacy Act disclosures are barred by routine-use exception | Disclosure to NPDB, state licensing, DFAS, and school violated Privacy Act | Disclosures fall within routine-use exception and notice defenses | Privacy Act claim survives pleading stage; applicability of routine-use exception reserved for after discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional and must be waived)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin, 864 F.3d 591 (APA waiver of sovereign immunity applies to non-APA suits)
- Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178 (APA waiver not limited to suits brought under APA)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (equitable relief vs. money damages distinction discussed)
- Hubbard v. Adm’r, EPA, 982 F.2d 531 (back pay considered outside APA waiver for specific relief analysis)
- Kreis v. Sec’y of Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (judicial deference to military personnel decisions)
- Emory v. Sec’y of Navy, 819 F.2d 291 (courts may adjudicate constitutional claims arising from military decisions)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (military personnel are not categorically barred from civilian court redress)
- Ames v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 861 F.3d 238 (Privacy Act routine-use exception framework)