Seneca v. Price
257 F. Supp. 3d 95
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Dean S. Seneca, a CDC health scientist, filed an EEO complaint alleging race, national origin, religion, color discrimination and reprisal; HHS investigated and issued a Report of Investigation.
- Seneca requested an EEOC ALJ hearing and moved for sanctions, alleging two management witnesses were not made available during the investigation.
- The ALJ denied the sanctions request, granted HHS’s motion to decide without a hearing, and issued a decision on the merits without taking testimony from the two witnesses, finding Seneca failed to prove discrimination.
- HHS adopted the ALJ’s decision as its final action; Seneca appealed to the EEOC Office of Federal Operations, which affirmed.
- Seneca sued in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the ALJ, HHS, and the EEOC acted arbitrary and capriciously by not compelling or considering the two witnesses’ testimony.
- HHS moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Title VII provides an adequate remedy (de novo district-court review), precluding APA review of the EEO process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Seneca may challenge the EEO administrative process under the APA | Seneca contends ALJ/HHS/EEOC acted arbitrarily by failing to obtain or consider two critical witnesses’ testimony | HHS argues Title VII affords an adequate judicial remedy (de novo district-court review), so APA review of final agency action is unavailable under 5 U.S.C. § 704 | Court held Title VII’s de novo remedy is adequate; APA suit dismissed for failure to state an APA claim |
| Whether failure to compel witness testimony during investigation is judicially reviewable under the APA | Alleged procedural defects (missing witnesses) rendered administrative record incomplete and arbitrary | HHS: such procedural complaints belong in a Title VII suit where plaintiff may build the record and obtain discovery | Court: procedural complaints about the EEO process are not cognizable under the APA where Title VII provides an adequate remedy |
| Proper remedy for alleged lost evidence or incomplete administrative record | Seek reviewing court relief under the APA for the administrative process | Pursue Title VII litigation de novo in district court and use discovery/depositions to obtain the witnesses’ testimony | Court: directed plaintiff to the Title VII remedy; dismissed APA complaint without prejudice |
| Venue (alternative argument by HHS) | Seneca brought suit in D.C. District Court | HHS argued venue may be improper under Title VII venue provisions | Court did not decide venue because it dismissed on APA grounds; noted improper venue is a separate valid basis for dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840 (federal employees entitled to de novo trial in district court)
- Garcia v. Vilsack, 563 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir.) (APA review unavailable where statute affords de novo district-court review)
- El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 396 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir.) (same principle regarding adequacy of other judicial remedies)
- Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.2d 311 (9th Cir.) (Title VII private right of action is an adequate judicial remedy; EEOC actions not reviewable under APA)
- Stewart v. EEOC, 611 F.2d 679 (7th Cir.) (where an adequate remedy in court exists under Title VII, APA claims fail)