946 F. Supp. 2d 128
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Minnick, a DHS employee, filed a DC Superior Court complaint against Defendant Carlile, a former DHS intern, asserting eleven tort-related claims arising from statements about Minnick’s work during a Texas assignment and resulting DHS security clearance investigation and unpaid leave.
- On December 13, 2010, a Westfall Act certification by the DOJ concluded Carlile acted within the scope of employment, removing the case to federal court and substituting the United States as defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d).
- Plaintiff challenged the scope-of-employment certification, arguing the alleged statements were outside the duties of an unpaid student intern and not within the ongoing DHS investigation timeline.
- The court applied the Restatement (Second) of Agency scope-of-employment test (kind of employment, time/space limits, purpose to serve master, and optional force prong) to evaluate whether the statements were within the employee’s scope.
- The court ultimately concluded the Westfall Act certification was valid; it substituted the United States as the sole Defendant, converted the case to FTCA, and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to lack of FTCA exhaustion, or, alternatively, non-waiver by the United States for these claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Westfall Act certification is valid. | Minnick contends statements were outside intern duties. | U.S. acted within scope; certification valid. | Certification valid; United States substituted. |
| Whether the United States should be substituted as the sole defendant under FTCA. | (Not explicitly presented beyond scope challenge) | Yes; proper substitution under Westfall Act. | United States substituted as sole defendant. |
| Whether the FTCA waives sovereign immunity for plaintiff’s claims (defamation, etc.). | FTCA waiver applies to torts arising in scope of employment? (challenged) | FTCA does not waive immunity for the asserted claims. | FTCA does not waive immunity for these claims. |
| Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies under FTCA. | Exhaustion required; plaintiff did not exhaust. | Exhaustion not proven; certification triggers removal. | Lack of exhaustion; court lacked jurisdiction; or, if exhausted, claims still not within FTCA waiver. |
| Subject matter jurisdiction after substitution. | Court has jurisdiction if FTCA applies; otherwise not. | Jurisdiction depends on exhaustion and FTCA waiver. | Court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. United States, 857 F. Supp. 2d 158 (D.D.C. 2012) (Westfall Act scope-of-employment standard; certification prima facie evidence of employment)
- Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (limits discovery to resolve jurisdictional disputes; scope inquiry)
- Upshaw v. United States, 669 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2009) (scope of employment test; partial motive suffices to serve master)
- Taylor v. Clark, 821 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D.D.C. 2011) (scope-of-employment analysis under Restatement (Second) of Agency; DC law)
- Klugel v. Small, 519 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2007) (defamatory statements during investigation within scope of employment)
- Hosey v. Jacobik, 966 F. Supp. 12 (D.D.C. 1997) (defamatory statements to investigator during security clearance investigation within scope)
- Brumfield v. Sanders, 232 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 2000) (employment-based defamation within scope)