Moran v. United States Capitol Police Board
820 F. Supp. 2d 48
D.D.C.2011Background
- Moran is a USCP Special Agent who filed internal complaints alleging discrimination in assignments to Pelosi’s protective detail (2005; 2008).
- Beginning September 2008, Moran faced disciplinary actions including CP-550s for alleged inappropriate conduct and duty issues.
- In November/December 2008 Moran received CP-534s alleging conduct unbecoming and later was suspended with pay in March 2009.
- On July 1, 2009 the USCP issued a Request for Disciplinary Action recommending termination; the Chief’s decision was pending.
- Moran pursued counseling and mediation (2009), then filed this action under the Congressional Accountability Act in January 2010.
- The court grants the motion to dismiss Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI, finding lack of materially adverse action or lack of exhaustion for Count IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for Count IV | Moran contends counseling/mediation completed, covering the CP-534s. | Counseling completion for the second CP-534 is unclear or not shown. | Count IV dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (insufficient exhaustion). |
| Materially adverse action—Counts I and II | Moran alleges retaliatory CP-550s caused harms. | No tangible job consequences; actions not materially adverse under standard. | Counts I and II dismissed.] |
| Materially adverse action—Count V (paid suspension) | Paid suspension caused ongoing harms (lost pay/overtime). | Paid suspension alone not enough without concrete harm. | Count V dismissed for lack of material adversity. |
| Materially adverse action—Count VI (termination recommendation) | Recommendation to terminate constitutes adverse action. | Recommendation alone does not change terms of employment; not necessarily adverse. | Count VI dismissed as not showing material adversity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (completion of counseling/mediation required for jurisdiction; flexibility to interpret completion)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse action requires actions that dissuade a reasonable employee from lodging a discrimination complaint)
- Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (materially adverse actions include tangible harms like impacts on pay or promotion)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (evaluations/warnings adverse only with tangible consequences)
- Greer v. Paulson, 505 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (illustrates when suspension with back pay constitutes material harm)
- Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (precedent on adverse actions and termination-related actions)