256 F. Supp. 3d 7
D.D.C.2017Background
- Pierce sues James Mattis in official capacity for race/sex/retaliation claims under Title VII and Rehabilitation Act based on evaluations/pay.
- Court denied summary judgment in 2016; amended complaint sought to add new claims and a Bivens claim.
- Defendant opposed amendment; court granted in part and denied in part, allowing Counts III–V but denying Bivens.
- Proposed amendments include hostile work environment (Title VII), Rehabilitation Act claims, and retaliation; Bivens against two NGA/OIG agents alleged.
- Plaintiff contends the new claims were not administratively exhausted at the time of original complaint; the court addresses exhaustion and jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment to add Counts III–V should be allowed | Pierce seeks to add unexhausted Title VII/ Rehabilitation Act claims | Amendment futile for Counts III–V? timeliness/unexhausted | Grant in part; Counts III–V allowed, not Bivens |
| Whether Bivens claim against Gray and Pond should be allowed | Bivens claim valid against agents for Fourth Amendment violation | Agents entitled to qualified immunity; limits personal jurisdiction | Denied; Bivens claim futile under qualified immunity |
| Whether Gray and Pond are subject to personal jurisdiction in DC | Contacts in DC sufficient via office locations and surveillance | No clear DC contacts; lack of personal jurisdiction | Court notes concerns but does not decide; amendment denied on other grounds |
| Whether statute of limitations affects Bivens claim | Three-year limit applicable to Bivens in circuit | One-year limit may apply for Fourth Amendment claims | Not decided; ultimately Bivens claim denied on qualified immunity and futility |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was properly alleged | EEOC filings pending; exhaustion complete for proposed claims | Untimely exhaustion not challenged; still subject to review | Court treats exhaustion as satisfied for the newly proposed non-Bivens claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (truthfulness required in warrant affidavits; material to probable cause)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity analysis; right clearly established?)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (officials shielded unless clearly violating constitutional rights)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (importance of early immunity resolution; objective reasonableness standard)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) (ample room for mistaken judgments; qualified immunity for reasonable mistakes)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects even mistaken but reasonable actions)