Wilfred Rattigan v. Eric Holder, Jr.
402 U.S. App. D.C. 166
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Rattigan, a Black Jamaican-Islam convert, alleged FBI retaliation under Title VII for reporting security concerns that led to a clearance investigation.
- OIO supervisors initially reported Leighton’s concerns; the Security Division reviewed and found no corroboration, closing the investigation.
- Rattigan sued in 2004; a jury awarded $300,000 for retaliation based on referral/reporting activities.
- This court previously held Egan shields Security Division decisions, but allowed claims based on reporting to proceed if not second-guessing the Division.
- On rehearing, the court narrowed Title VII liability to knowingly false reporting to avoid chilling reporting under EO 12,968 and Egan, remanding for further proceedings.
- The majority remands to determine if there is sufficient evidence of knowing falsity to allow trial; retains Rattigan’s claims consistent with the knowingly false standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Egan bars Title VII review of reporting decisions | Rattigan argues reporting decisions are reviewable | Government contends only Security Division decisions are insulated | Limitations on review affirmed; reporting decisions not fully shielded but narrowed to knowingly false reporting |
| Whether knowingly false reporting can be Title VII actionable without chilling reporting | Rattigan supports knowingly false reporting liability | Government cautions chilling effects | Acknowledges knowingly false standard can coexist with EO 12,968; remand for factual determinations on falsity |
| Scope of remand and sufficiency of evidence to proceed | Record may support knowing falsity | Record largely uncontested; remand unnecessary | Remand to allow discovery and determine sufficiency of knowing-falsity evidence |
| Impact on Executive Order 12,968 reporting mandate | Liability should not deter reporting | Broad reporting mandate could conflict with liability | Narrowly construe liability to avoid chilling effect while preserving reporting |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) (security-clearance review presumes executive-branch expertise; broad review barred)
- Bennett v. Chertoff, 425 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Egan-based bar to review of security decisions applies in Title VII)
- Ryan v. Reno, 168 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Egan's bar applies to discrimination claims stemming from security decisions)
- Rattigan v. Holder, 643 F.3d 975 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (initial panel holding that reporting referrals may be reviewed but not Security Division decisions)