Tolson v. Stanton
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21967
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiff Troy Tolson is a Department of Education employee with Laster as his first-line and Stanton as his second-line supervisor.
- Defendant Stanton is a non-attorney supervisor in the DOE's Office of the Chief Financial Officer and oversees matters alleged in the complaint.
- Plaintiff alleges stalking, repeated confrontations, and four assaults by Stanton, including injuries to his knee.
- Two key incidents are described: June 21, 2011—meeting with personal attacks, attempted physical force, and a knee sprain; plaintiff’s and defendant’s accounts diverge on touching and intent.
- A September 26, 2011 incident is alleged as kicking, elbowing, pushing, and pursuit to the exit; defendant claims plaintiff caused a scene and followed witnesses.
- Tolson seeks damages, medical costs, lost wages, and injunctions including a stay-away order and firearm disclosure; court denies TRO/prelim injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on merits given FTCA and FECA defenses | Tolson argues FTCA applicability and exhaustion. | Stanton argues failure to exhaust FTCA and FECA bar. | Tolson fails; FTCA exhaustion and sovereign immunity undermine likelihood. |
| Exhaustion and proper party under FTCA | Exhaustion required and proper party sued. | United States not named; exhaustion not satisfied; FTCA jurisdictional bar. | Exhaustion/proper party lacking; no FTCA jurisdiction. |
| FTCA assault exclusion and FECA applicability | FTCA covers assault claims against government. | FTCA excludes assault; FECA requires employee forms; not completed. | FTCA excludes assault; FECA not established; relief improper. |
| Irreparable injury and public interest | Irreparable harm from stalking/assault justifies relief. | Injury and public interest do not favor injunction; balance harms against government. | Injunction denied; irreparable harm not enough to win relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738 (D.C.Cir.1995) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions (independent considerations))
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court 2008) (four-factor test treated independently post-Winter)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C.Cir.2011) (likelihood of success is an independent requirement for a preliminary injunction)
- Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C.Cir.2009) (sliding-scale approach to injunction factors; modern approach post-Winter)
- Allina Health Servs. v. Sebelius, 756 F.Supp.2d 61 (D.D.C.2010) (injunctions require probability of irreparable harm and other factors)
- Koch v. United States, No. 02-5222, 2002 WL 31926832 (D.C.Cir. Dec. 31, 2002) (FTCA assault claims not cognizable; jurisdictional bar)
- Briscoe v. Potter, 355 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C.2004) (FECA exclusivity for workplace-injury claims)
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (D.C.Cir.1987) (FTCA exhaustion jurisdictional principle)