Sam Lee v. United States
20-16722
| 9th Cir. | Sep 21, 2021Background
- Sam Lee received an EEOC Title VII right-to-sue letter in October; the Title VII 90-day filing period applies.
- Before he filed suit, Lee requested and received a second right-to-sue letter from the EEOC that purported to restart the 90-day clock.
- Lee did not file suit until the following February, outside 90 days from the first letter; he alleged he incurred expenses pursuing the claim because of the EEOC’s second letter.
- Lee sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligence, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief, and negligent supervision.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding sovereign immunity was not waived under the FTCA.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Lee’s claims are barred by the FTCA’s misrepresentation exception because his injuries flow from allegedly inaccurate information from the EEOC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA waives immunity for claims based on EEOC’s second letter | Lee: FTCA permits suit for EEOC’s negligent conduct that caused expenses | U.S.: FTCA’s misrepresentation exception bars claims based on inaccurate information | Held: FTCA bars misrepresentation claims; immunity not waived |
| Whether the substance of Lee’s claims is misrepresentation | Lee: Claims framed as negligence and breach, not pure misrepresentation | U.S.: Substance shows injuries resulted from inaccurate EEOC information | Held: Look-through analysis treats claim as misrepresentation |
| Whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper | Lee: Court should permit FTCA suit on alleged torts | U.S.: Sovereign immunity applies; dismissal appropriate | Held: Affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether negligent supervision claim survives independently | Lee: Supervision claim is distinct tort | U.S.: It depends on same underlying misstatement | Held: Fails for same reason as other claims (misrepresentation exception) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 (1961) (FTCA bars negligent and willful misrepresentation claims)
- Mt. Homes, Inc. v. United States, 912 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1990) (look to substance of allegations to classify claim)
- Pauly v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 348 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (injuries from inaccurate government information are barred by section 2680(h))
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) (standards for appellate review of 12(b)(1))
- Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 738 F.3d 214 (9th Cir. 2013) (appellate court may affirm on any correct basis supported by the record)