United States v. Manigault Newman
Civil Action No. 2019-1868
| D.D.C. | Mar 15, 2022Background
- Omarosa Manigault Newman served as White House Director of Communications for the Office of Public Liaison and earned $179,700, placing her over the EIGA filing threshold.
- Her White House employment was effective terminated on December 19, 2017, so her EIGA Termination Report was due January 18, 2018.
- White House ethics officials and integrity.gov sent numerous reminders (emails, calls, automated notices); Manigault Newman acknowledged receiving reminders in March 2018.
- Manigault Newman did not file the Termination Report until September 11, 2019—over a year after the deadline—despite confirmation of the termination date and offers of assistance.
- The United States sued June 25, 2019 under 5 U.S.C. app. 4 § 104 for a civil penalty; cross-motions for summary judgment followed. The court denied Manigault Newman’s motion and granted the Government’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Manigault Newman was required to file and failed to file a Termination Report | Gov.: Manigault Newman met pay/position threshold and missed the 30‑day filing deadline | Manigault Newman: disputed termination date and missing White House documents prevented filing | Court: Requirement and failure established; threshold and missed deadline satisfied |
| Whether the failure was knowing and willful | Gov.: Repeated notices and Manigault Newman’s admissions show knowledge and intentional disregard | Manigault Newman: confusion about termination date and documentary hold‑ups show lack of willfulness | Court: Failure was willful—intentional disregard/indifference; sustained by precedent |
| Termination‑date defense | Gov.: HR records and counsel confirmed December 19, 2017; ambiguity resolved March 26, 2018 | Manigault Newman: believed termination was later and thus could not accurately file | Court: Termination date was conclusively confirmed; disagreement was not a lawful basis to withhold filing |
| Whistleblower defense and appropriate penalty | Gov.: WPA does not create an affirmative defense in district court; seeks maximum inflation‑adjusted penalty ($61,585) given willfulness and defendant’s resources | Manigault Newman: lawsuit was retaliatory and protected by WPA | Court: WPA inapplicable (no district‑court affirmative defense and she was not an employee at relevant times); imposed maximum penalty to effectuate deterrence |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovitky v. Trump, 949 F.3d 753 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (describing EIGA’s purpose to promote public confidence and require financial disclosure)
- Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 940 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (discussing EIGA reporting requirements and covered officials)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (willfulness requires knowledge that conduct was unlawful)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (defining willfulness standard in criminal/statutory context)
- United States v. Burden, 934 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (applying willfulness principles)
- United States v. Gant, 268 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2003) (finding willful EIGA violation where defendant ignored repeated reminders)
- United States v. Tarver, 642 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Wyo. 1986) (EIGA violation where defendant refused to comply after being informed)
- Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (explaining WPA remedies and statutory review channels)
- Guzman v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., [citation="53 F. App'x 927"] (Fed. Cir. 2002) (WPA does not apply where plaintiff was not an employee or applicant at time of alleged personnel action)