PATSY BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS RIDGE, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 03-2176 (RBW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
May 14, 2004, Decided
...
In August 2000, while employed by the DOD as a national Program Manager,
the plaintiff acknowledges that she asked an investigative assistant in
her office to conduct a personnel search of internet databases for her
to locate the address of an individual. Am. Compl. P 17. While [*6] the
plaintiff states that she specifically informed the assistant that she
should limit her search to "public records," the assistant apparently
referred the request to another researcher who then conducted a search
limited to government investigative bodies. Id. PP 17-18. Because of the
scope of the search, the DOD's Office of Inspector General investigated
the plaintiff's search request and on February 6, 2001, proposed to
terminate plaintiff's employment because she had allegedly asked the
assistant to confine the search to government investigative bodies and
then attempted to conceal the scope of her search request. Id. PP 19-21.
In response, the plaintiff filed an administrative complaint of
discrimination with the DOD. Id. P 22. On April 25, 2001, the plaintiff
was notified that she would be terminated, effective April 27, 2001, and
she resigned the following day. Id. PP 24-25.
On May 21, 2001, the plaintiff and the DOD entered into a mediation
agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to withdraw her administrative
complaint and resign in exchange for the agency's promise to expunge its
proposal and decision to [*7] terminate her employment. Id. P 27. The
DOD also agreed to refrain from disclosing this information, except
under specific circumstances, which the plaintiff contends is not
applicable to the circumstances of this case. Id. In April 2002, the
plaintiff interviewed with the TSA for a criminal investigator position
and, according to her, disclosed to the TSA "in her pre-employment
interview" the circumstances surrounding her separation from the DOD.
Id. PP 29-30. Upon being conditionally hired by the TSA, the plaintiff
signed and certified an Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") Optional
Form ("OF") 306, Declaration for Federal Employment, in which she
answered in the negative Question 11, which asked:
During the last 5 years: were you fired from any job for any
reason; did you quit after being told you would be fired; did you leave
any job by mutual agreement because of specific problems; or, were you
debarred from Federal employment by the Office of Personnel Management?
...
IV. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, this Court will grant defendant Ridge's
motion to dismiss. This result is called for by the [*24] District of
Columbia Circuit's decision in Ryan, which precludes a court from
exercising subject matter jurisdiction in the Title VII context when an
agency's explanation about why an employee was subjected to an adverse
employment action will inevitably require judicial review of the
agency's decision to deny a security clearance. Accordingly, this Court
will dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims against defendant Ridge. n5
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 08:43:05 PDT