Randolph Koch v. Mary Jo White
408 U.S. App. D.C. 381
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Koch, a SEC employee, requested a rehabilitation accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act for cardiac rehab.
- The agency stalled for over a year; Koch pursued informal counseling then formal complaint.
- An investigator from a private firm was assigned; Koch refused to provide testimony and withheld some medical records.
- Koch believed Privacy Act protections required clauses in the contract governing the investigator; he contested disclosure.
- Koch stopped cooperating, the Office dismissed for non-cooperation; district court granted summary judgment for the Commission.
- Appeal concerns whether Koch exhausted administrative remedies and whether dismissal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Koch exhaust administrative remedies? | Koch contends records submission sufficed. | Inadequate information was provided; continued cooperation required. | No; Koch failed to exhaust. |
| Should the district court have excused non-cooperation? | Good faith belief about Privacy Act clauses justified non-cooperation. | Non-cooperation was unjustified and not excused. | No; no good cause to excuse. |
| Is exhaustion determined by agency's ability to investigate with available information? | Investigation could proceed with initial submissions. | Agency required testimony and possibly records; information provided was insufficient. | Insufficient information to investigate; exhaustion not satisfied. |
| Does good faith refusal to cooperate warrant excusing exhaustion under the Rehab Act? | Some circuits recognize good faith cooperation as a basis to excuse. | Here, refusal to cooperate was unjustified. | Not warranted; no excusal. |
| Should the court review the district court's reasoning or its ultimate judgment? | Appeals on district court’s reasoning should be reviewed. | Court reviews judgment, not reasoning. | Affirmed on judgment; not remanding for reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rann v. Chao, 346 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (insufficient information to exhaust when signed affidavit withheld)
- Wade v. Sec’y of Army, 796 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1986) (good faith effort to cooperate cited by some courts)
- Avocados Plus, Inc. v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (abuse of discretion in excusing exhaustion framework)
- Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 814 F.2d 731 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (exhaustion and agency procedures require compliance before challenging)
- Wilson v. Peña, 79 F.3d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (failure to provide information can bar suit)