Rattigan v. Holder
395 U.S. App. D.C. 437
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Rattigan, FBI agent in Riyadh, files discrimination complaints alleging race and national origin discrimination.
- In 2002, FBI Security Division initiates a security investigation based on an internal memo by OIO supervisor Leighton and a referral from OIO to Security.
- Tucker's interview and Security Division report concluded no security risk; investigation later closed.
- Rattigan sues in 2004 under Title VII alleging retaliation for discrimination complaints; district court mostly dismisses but allows one claim to proceed.
- At trial, government moves to dismiss as nonjusticiable; district court denies; jury verdict favors Rattigan.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit vacates and remands, holding Egan limits review to Security Division decisions, but allows potential review of OIO referrals if kept separate from Security Division's merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Egan bars review of OIO referral decisions as to retaliation | Rattigan argues Egan does not bar reviewing OIO referrals. | Holder argues Egan covers core security decisions, including referrals; review would usurp national security judgments. | Remanded; Egan shields Security Division, but not OIO referrals. |
| Whether the Security Division's merit decisions are reviewable | Jury could assess retaliation without reweighing security judgments. | Security judgments are unreviewable under Egan. | Security Division judgments generally unreviewable; defects addressed on remand. |
| Whether OIO referral can be a materially adverse action under Title VII | Referral itself can deter filing of discrimination claims. | Referral is not an adverse action under Title VII. | Referral can be materially adverse; remand to develop record without second-guessing Security Division. |
| Whether the district court's instructions elevated Egan violations | Jury instructed to consider retaliation against OIO referral; error under Egan. | Instructions properly separated issues from Security Division merits. | Remand to ensure jury does not second-guess Security Division; preserve need for cautionary instructions. |
| Proper remedy on remand | Jury assessment of retaliation should proceed with safeguards. | Dismissal may be appropriate if evidence insufficient without Security Division review. | Vacate judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court 1988) (security-clearance decisions generally unreviewable)
- Ryan v. Reno, 168 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Egan applies to Title VII retaliation cases from security decisions)
- Bennett v. Chertoff, 425 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (court cannot adjudicate credibility of security-determination reasons)
- White v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court 2006) (retaliation standard and material adversity in Title VII context)
- Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (Supreme Court 2011) (retaliation encompasses broader actions affecting reporting)