Townsend v. United States of America
Civil Action No. 2015-1644
| D.D.C. | Oct 16, 2017Background
- Townsend sued EPA, DOJ, the United States, and ten individual officials alleging employment-related constitutional and statutory claims arising from investigations into time-and-attendance fraud, demotion, and eventual termination.
- After the FAC (21 counts) was filed, the court in Townsend I dismissed 20 of 21 counts, leaving only an ADEA claim as to age in connection with his demotion.
- Townsend moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to add factual allegations and drop some claims; defendants opposed, arguing futility and prejudice.
- The proposed SAC adds limited new factual allegations (naming three allegedly similarly mistreated older employees and specifying ages for comparators) but largely reiterates legal conclusions for many dismissed counts.
- The Court evaluated leave under Rule 15(a), focusing on futility (whether amended claims would survive a motion to dismiss) and denied leave in part, allowing only limited claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Townsend seeks to cure pleading defects with additional factual allegations and should be allowed to amend under Rule 15(a) | Defendants contend amendment is futile for most counts and would prejudice defendants by re-litigating dismissed claims | Granted in part: leave denied as to most counts as futile; granted only as to limited portions of Counts I and II |
| Count I — ADEA disparate treatment re: demotion | Townsend contends age was a factor in his constructive demotion | Defendants say new allegations add nothing material | Granted in part: survives only to the extent it alleges age discrimination related to demotion |
| Count II — ADEA pattern-or-practice claim | Townsend added allegations about other older employees treated similarly (named examples) to show a pattern | Defendants argue allegations remain too sparse to show systemwide practice | Granted: new targeted allegations suffice to nudge pattern-or-practice claim into plausibility |
| Remaining claims (Title VII hostile work environment, Privacy Act, §1983, constitutional torts, disparate impact, retaliation, race/sex disparate treatment) | Townsend asserts additional factual and policy allegations cure prior deficiencies | Defendants argue amendments are conclusory, lack required factual specificity or legal applicability (e.g., §1983 not available against federal actors), and some claims are precluded by CSRA or barred by pleading deficiencies | Denied as futile: court dismisses all remaining counts (including hostile work environment, Privacy Act claim as pleaded, §1983, disparate impact, retaliation, race/sex claims), explaining specific legal defects for each |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (Rule 15 leave-to-amend standard)
- Williams v. Lew, 819 F.3d 466 (amendment/futility standard)
- Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (pattern-or-practice framework)
- O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (ADEA disparate-treatment standards)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (no expectation of privacy in third-party records)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity for retaliation causation)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 610 F.3d 110 (stigma-plus rule in Fifth Amendment claims)