Payne v. Locke
766 F. Supp. 2d 245
D.D.C.2011Background
- Payne, a male applicant, sought the Lead Information Technology Specialist position in the Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, and was not selected; a woman was hired instead.
- Payne allegedly was told by a deputy inspector general that gender bias influenced the hiring decision and that Payne was more qualified than the chosen applicant.
- Payne filed an EEO charge on January 2, 2008 after discussing the matter with an EEO counselor on December 17, 2007; he sought an administrative judge (AJ) hearing on June 6, 2008.
- An AJ discovery schedule was issued August 28, 2008; discovery was to be completed within 70 days; the process included multiple discovery disputes and sanctions motions.
- Payne withdrew his administrative complaint to pursue federal court litigation on March 26, 2009, and the AJ dismissed the administrative case March 27, 2009, remanding to the agency; the Final Agency Decision issued June 24, 2009.
- The Secretary moved to dismiss or for summary judgment arguing lack of exhaustion; the court treated the motion as summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Payne exhausted administrative remedies before suit | Payne cooperated for more than 180 days; 180 days post-complaint permitted federal suit. | Payne abandoned the process by non-cooperation in discovery and withdrawal. | Exhaustion satisfied; more than 180 days elapsed and no abandonment shown. |
| Whether Payne's conduct after 180 days foreclosed judicial relief | Post-180-day conduct does not negate exhaustion; abstains from dismissal. | Continued non-cooperation warrants dismissal. | No dismissal for post-180-day conduct; not sufficiently uncooperative to negate exhaustion. |
| Whether withdrawal of the administrative complaint and retrieval of FAD affects the right to sue | Withdrawal and pursuit of federal court relief are permissible under EEOC guidance. | Withdrawal undermines the administrative process and exhaustion. | Withdrawal to pursue federal court relief does not bar suit; exhaustion remains intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Pena, 79 F.3d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (completion of 180-day window permits suit)
- Grubbs v. Butz, 514 F.2d 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (exhaustion and timely access to courts in discrimination disputes)
- Crawford v. Babbitt, 186 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) (good-faith cooperation with agency and EEOC required)
- Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (extreme noncooperation may bar relief; factual context matters)