Terrence Filer v. Michael Donley
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16611
5th Cir.2012Background
- Filer is a dual-status ART in the 301st Maintenance Group under the 301st Fighter Wing, serving as civilian Chief of Training Management and military Chief of Training (E-6).
- Filer alleges a racially hostile work environment at the 301st MG that caused him to leave his civilian job and lose his reserve position.
- Incident: while on active duty on Sept. 21, 2007, a noose was displayed in Roark’s office with a grenade display, later removed; Roark claimed it was a joke about complaints.
- Supervisor discipline and EEOC process followed: informal EEOC complaint filed Sept. 27, 2007; oral admonishment of Roark and related consequences after investigation; CDI ordered Jan. 10, 2008.
- Filer filed a formal EEOC charge on Dec. 4, 2007 alleging a hostile environment; EEOC issued a final decision in Jan. 2010 finding no hostile environment; Filer sued Secretary of the Air Force in district court.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, concluding Feres barred the claim and that exhaustion prevented consideration of other allegations; on appeal, the court vacated and remanded for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Filer exhausted Title VII administrative remedies. | Filer exhausted the actionable noose claim; other acts should be considered under continuing violation. | Only the noose claim was properly exhausted; others are unexhausted. | Exhaustion lacking for all but the noose claim. |
| Whether the surviving claim is justiciable under Feres. | No, the noose incident relates to civilian duties; not military. | Noose occurred during active duty; relates to military status. | Surviving claim non-justiciable under Feres; district court should dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion required for Title VII claims unless growing out of EEOC charge)
- Tolbert v. United States, 916 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1990) (lack of exhaustion deprives jurisdiction)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (continuing violation doctrine in hostile environment claims)
- Williams v. Wynne, 533 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2008) (military status impacts hostility claims; active duty relevance)
- Walch v. Adjutant Gen.’s Dept. of Tex., 533 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2008) (dual-status claims; military structure governs review)
- Brown v. United States, 227 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2000) (civilian vs. military status; purely military personnel decisions non-justiciable)
- Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (military-related injuries not reviewable in court)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (court may dismiss for straightforward jurisdictional defects)