530 F.Supp.3d 1
D.D.C.2021Background
- Plaintiff Nancy Norton alleges she tripped on an unsecured cord on an asphalt walkway in President’s Park during the White House Easter Egg Roll (Apr. 22, 2019) while working for a private contractor, Rosedale Marketing.
- Norton filed an administrative tort claim with the Department of Justice on Aug. 6, 2019; DOJ acknowledged receipt and forwarded it to the White House on Sept. 24, 2019.
- Norton sued the United States under the FTCA on Apr. 7, 2020 before the National Park Service (NPS) had received her claim; Norton submitted the claim directly to NPS on July 21, 2020 after the White House forwarded it to NPS on July 13, 2020.
- The Government moved to dismiss, arguing (1) Norton was a volunteer subject to the Volunteers in the Parks Act and thus her exclusive remedy was under FECA, and (2) Norton failed to exhaust FTCA administrative remedies before suing.
- The Court declined to reach the FECA/volunteer question and held Norton failed to satisfy the FTCA’s mandatory exhaustion requirement at the time she filed suit.
- The Court dismissed the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, dismissing the case without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Norton's exclusive remedy is workers’ compensation under FECA because she was a "volunteer" under the VPA | Norton argued she worked for a private contractor and sought FTCA relief; she also emphasized her good-faith efforts to present a claim | Government argued Norton was a volunteer covered by VPA, making FECA the exclusive remedy | Court did not decide this issue; resolved the case on exhaustion grounds |
| Whether Norton exhausted FTCA administrative remedies before filing suit | Norton said she filed an administrative claim with DOJ (Aug. 6, 2019), waited for agency response, and had provided notice to the Government | Government said Norton filed suit (Apr. 7, 2020) before the appropriate agency (NPS) had received the claim (NPS receipt July 2020), so exhaustion was not satisfied | Court held FTCA exhaustion is jurisdictional; Norton filed prematurely and failed to exhaust; dismissal without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (FTCA bars suit until administrative remedies are exhausted)
- Simpkins v. Dist. of Columbia, 108 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (FTCA filing requirement is jurisdictional)
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (purpose of exhaustion is to allow agency investigation and settlement)
- Avocados Plus Inc. v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (distinguishing jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional exhaustion doctrines)
- Odin v. United States, 656 F.2d 798 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (section 2675(a) is a jurisdictional prerequisite)