Menoken v. Lerner, 270 F. Supp. 3d 200

Background

Cassandra Menoken, an African‑American EEOC attorney, participated in the 1993 ALJ exam and later challenged OPM’s use of a partner benchmark that EEOC found had a disparate racial impact and ordered OPM to cease using.
EEOC issued remedial orders in 2000–2001 requiring OPM to stop using the partner benchmark and correct lingering effects; EEOC found Menoken not entitled to individual relief.
Menoken repeatedly litigated these issues against OPM; a federal district court granted summary judgment to OPM (Menoken I) and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.
In August 2012 Menoken filed a 5 U.S.C. § 1213 disclosure with OSC alleging OPM continued to use the unlawful scoring factor and EEOC declined to enforce its order; OSC closed the file without processing under § 1213(b) and later declined reconsideration.
Menoken sued OSC under the APA seeking mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief to compel OSC to reopen and process her § 1213 disclosure. OSC moved to dismiss for lack of standing and other grounds.
The court dismissed Menoken’s suit for lack of Article III standing, concluding she failed to plead injury in fact, traceability, and redressability; the court also held many asserted injuries were precluded by prior litigation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing — Injury in fact	Menoken says OSC’s failure to follow § 1213 deprived her of the right to have her disclosure processed and caused tangible injury (ongoing harm from ALJ nonselection and public interest injury).	OSC says Menoken alleges only procedural statutory violations without any concrete, particularized harm.	Court: No injury — procedural violations alone insufficient; prior litigation precludes reliance on ALJ nonselection as injury.
Standing — Traceability (causation)	Menoken implies OSC’s inaction allowed continued OPM/EEOC misconduct that harmed her.	OSC says alleged harm stems from OPM/EEOC actions (third parties), not OSC, so causation is lacking.	Court: No traceability — plaintiff failed to link her injury to OSC’s conduct; primary harm attributed to OPM/EEOC.
Standing — Redressability	Menoken seeks order compelling OSC to reopen and properly process the disclosure; argues judicial relief could lead to enforcement and accountability.	OSC argues relief would be speculative because OSC must refer to agencies, which may again find no wrongdoing; multiple speculative steps required to remedy alleged injury.	Court: No redressability — successful relief would require speculative chain of third‑party actions; not likely enough to confer standing.
Preclusion of ALJ nonselection injury	Menoken contends continued harm from OPM’s conduct supports standing.	OSC points to earlier litigation in which courts found OPM complied; issue preclusion bars relitigation of OPM noncompliance.	Court: Issue preclusion applies — prior judgments resolved OPM’s compliance and Menoken cannot relitigate that injury here.

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (statutory violation alone insufficient; injury must be concrete and particularized)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (generalized grievance that government act lawfully does not confer standing)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (procedural right without concrete interest is insufficient)
Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir.) (difficulties establishing standing when injury depends on third‑party decisions)
Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 830 F.3d 511 (D.C. Cir.) (statutory violation without concrete harm fails standing)
Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir.) (mandamus against OSC under § 1214 if OSC violated nondiscretionary duty)