Casey v. Department of Defense, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Casey v. Department of Defense, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 15- 1115

DEANNE CASEY,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVI CES; SYLVI A M. BURWELL,i n her capaci t y as Secr et ary of t he Depart ment of Heal t h and

Human Servi ces; DEBORAH LEE J AMES, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as

Secr et ary of t he Uni t ed Stat es Ai r For ce; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;WI LLI AM CARPENTER; FRANK GLENN; LEON E. PANETTA, i n hi s of f i ci al

capaci t y as Secr et ar y of Def ense,

Def endant s, Appel l ees,

STG I NTERNATI ONAL; J ESSE BURK, i ndi vi dual l y and i n her of f i ci alcapaci t y as Heal t h Pr omot i on Oper at i on Manager at t he Feder alOccupat i onal Heal t h Di vi si on of t he Depart ment of Heal t h and

Human Ser vi ces,

Def endant s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge][ Hon. M. Page Kel l ey, U. S. Magi st r at e J udge]

Bef ore

Howar d, Chi ef J udge,

Sel ya and St ahl , Ci r cui t J udges.

J oseph L. Sul man, wi t h whom Davi d I . Br ody and Law Of f i ce ofJ oseph L. Sul man, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Ani t a J ohnson, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomCar men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ees.


2/24

December 7, 2015


3/24

- 3 -

STAHL, Circuit Judge. The Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant , Deanne

Casey, was f ormer l y empl oyed as a nur se coor di nat or wi t h t he

Ci vi l i an Heal t h Pr omot i on Ser vi ces Pr ogr am ( "CHPS Pr ogr am") at

Hanscom Ai r For ce Base i n Bedf or d, Massachuset t s ( "Hanscom") .

Af t er Casey' s empl oyment was t er mi nated, she br ought sui t agai nst

t he gover nment cont r actor t hat empl oyed her , her super vi sor , as

wel l as sever al gover nment agenci es and of f i ci al s t hat she bel i eved

wer e i nvol ved i n her t er mi nat i on. I n r el evant par t , Casey al l eged

a vi ol at i on of her Fi r st Amendment r i ght s pur suant t o Bi vens v.

Si x Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Nar cot i cs, 403 U. S.

388 ( 1971) . 1 She al so al l eged t hat sever al of t he def endant s had

engaged i n unl awf ul gender di scr i mi nat i on i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e

VI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. 2000e et seq.

I n t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow, t he di st r i ct j udge di smi ssed

Casey' s Bi vens cl ai m. Then, l at er , a magi st r at e j udge gr ant ed

summary j udgment t o t he remai ni ng def endant on t he Ti t l e VI I cl ai m.

Casey now appeal s. We AFFI RM bot h di sposi t i ons, t hough we do so

as t o the Bi vens cl ai m f or r easons ot her t han t hose r el i ed upon by

t he di str i ct j udge.

1 A "Bi vens" act i on i s a ci vi l sui t br ought agai nstagent s of t he Uni t ed St at es, and i s vi ewed as t he f eder al anal ogt o 1983 sui t s agai nst st at e of f i ci al s. See Sot o- Tor r es v.Fr at i cel l i , 654 F. 3d 153, 157- 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .


4/24

- 4 -

I. Facts and Background

A. Casey' s Empl oyment at Hanscom

The CHPS Progr am was cr eat ed pur suant t o an i nt eragency

agr eement between t he Federal Occupat i onal Heal t h Di vi si on ( "FOH

Di vi si on" ) of t he Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of Heal t h and Human

Servi ces ( "DHHS") and t he Uni t ed St at es Ai r Force Mat er i el Command

( "AFMC") . I t s pur pose i s t o pr ovi de occupat i onal heal t h ser vi ces

t o ci vi l i an empl oyees of t he AFMC. However , nei t her t he FOH

Di vi si on nor t he AFMC di r ect l y admi ni st er or r un t he CHPS Progr am.

Rat her , t he FOH Di vi si on engages pr i vat e cont r act or s t o per f or m

t hese f unct i ons.

I n 2007, Casey was hi r ed as a Nurse Coor di nat or by STG

I nt er nat i onal I nc. ( "STG") , t he gover nment cont r act or t hen

empl oyed t o admi ni st er t he CHPS Progr am at Hanscom. As a Nurse

Coor di nat or , Casey was r esponsi bl e f or t eachi ng heal t h and

wel l ness cl asses, conduct i ng bl ood pr essur e and car di ac r i sk

pr of i l e screeni ngs, and per f or mi ng ot her heal t h- r el at ed ser vi ces

f or AFMC per sonnel empl oyed at Hanscom.

I n 2010, t he cont r act ual ar r angement s were amended. A

company known as Mi l l enni um Heal t h and Fi t ness, I nc.

( "Mi l l enni um") became t he pr i me cont r act or t o t he FOH Di vi si on,

and STG ent er ed i nt o a subcont r act wi t h Mi l l enni um.

Cont emporaneousl y, Casey execut ed a new empl oyment agreement wi t h

STG, now t he subcont r act or t o Mi l l enni um. Thi s agr eement pr ovi ded


5/24

- 5 -

t hat Casey woul d cont i nue her empl oyment wi t h STG, per f ormi ng

si mi l ar j ob f unct i ons as she had pr evi ousl y when STG was t he

pr i mar y cont r act or t o the FOH Di vi si on.

At al l r el evant t i mes, STG set and pai d Casey' s sal ar y

and pr ovi ded her wi t h empl oyee benef i t s and W- 2 f orms. Casey' s

i mmedi at e STG super vi sor was J esse Burk, who was t he Heal t h

Promot i on Operat i on Manager overseei ng t he CHPS Progr amat a t ot al

of ei ght Ai r For ce bases acr oss t he count r y. Al t hough Bur k

i ni t i al l y was empl oyed by STG when i t was t he pr i me cont r act or , i n

2010, coi nci dent al l y wi t h t he cont r act change, she became an

empl oyee of Mi l l enni um. Burk r epor t ed t o Susan St ei nman, who was

an empl oyee of t he FOH Di vi si on of t he DHHS.

At al l t i mes, based on cr i t er i a pr escr i bed by t he FOH

Di vi si on, Bur k was r esponsi bl e f or devel opi ng t he heal t h and

wel l ness cur r i cul um t hat Casey t aught at Hanscom. Bur k al so

r evi ewed Casey' s cal endar on a mont hl y basi s t o ensur e t hat Casey

was t eachi ng t he r equi si t e number of cour ses and was otherwi se

usi ng her t i me ef f ect i vel y. Whi l e Bur k was empl oyed by STG, among

her ot her dut i es, she was r esponsi bl e f or compl et i ng Casey' s

per f or mance eval uat i ons. When Bur k t r ansf er r ed f r om STG t o

Mi l l enni um, di r ect r esponsi bi l i t y f or Casey' s per f or mance

eval uat i ons f el l t o a di f f er ent STG empl oyee, t hough Bur k cont i nued

t o pr ovi de Casey wi t h f eedback and r ecommendat i ons.


6/24

- 6 -

The r ecor d suggest s t hat , somet i me i n 2011, Casey' s wor k

per f ormance began t o f al t er . For exampl e, i n August 2011, Bur k

was f orced to counsel Casey about her poor communi cat i on ski l l s

and her unexpl ai ned absences f r om her of f i ce dur i ng the wor kday.

The si t uat i on escal at ed i n November 2011, when Burk

r ecei ved r epor t s f r om Wi l l i amCar pent er , t he manager of t he Heal t h

and Wel l ness Cent er at Hanscom( wher e Casey' s of f i ce was l ocat ed) ,

t hat Casey was not per f ormi ng her j ob dut i es and was bei ng

uncommuni cat i ve. On Thursday, November 10, Casey di scovered a

memorandum cr i t i cal of her per f ormance si t t i ng on a workpl ace copy

machi ne and conf r ont ed Car pent er i n hi s of f i ce about t he

memorandum' s cont ent s. The part i es of f er di ver gi ng account s of

exact l y what t r anspi r ed, al t hough i t i s cl ear t hat , i mmedi at el y

f ol l owi ng t he conf r ont at i on, Casey r epor t ed t o mi l i t ar y pol i ce

t hat Car pent er had assaul t ed her .

Bur k di d not l ear n of t he November 10 i nci dent unt i l t he

f ol l owi ng Monday, November 14, when she recei ved an e- mai l f r om

J udi t h Hol l , an AFMC empl oyee i n char ge of overseei ng t he CHPS

Pr ogr am. Hol l ' s e- mai l r epor t ed a "maj or i nci dent at Hanscom, "

and i n subsequent communi cat i ons wi t h Bur k, Hol l ur ged t hat Casey

be r emoved f r om t he CHPS Progr am. I n t ur n, Bur k cont acted

St ei nman. Over t he cour se of t he day on November 14, Hol l , Bur k,

and St ei nman communi cat ed by phone and e- mai l about t he need to

t ermi nat e Casey' s empl oyment based on her poor per f ormance.


7/24

- 7 -

The next day, November 15, t he t enor of t he

communi cat i ons changed dr ast i cal l y, as Hol l , Bur k, and St ei nman

gr ew i ncr easi ngl y concer ned t hat Casey was r ef usi ng t o respond t o

mi l i t ary personnel at Hanscom, and was unaccount ed f or at a secure

mi l i t ar y f aci l i t y. Hol l i ndi cat ed t hat she had "gr ave concer ns

about . . . Casey' s presence [at ] Hanscom, " and she r epor t ed t hat

Casey sounded "par anoi d al most del usi onal . " Hol l r equest ed t hat

Casey be "r emoved i mmedi at el y f r om [ Hanscom] and her I D car d

conf i scat ed. "

Ar ound mi dday on November 15, STG made t he deci si on t o

t ermi nat e Casey' s empl oyment . Burk spoke wi t h Casey by phone, and

not i f i ed her t hat she was bei ng pl aced on admi ni st r at i ve l eave.

Shor t l y ther eaf t er , Ai r For ce Col onel Frank Gl enn ( "Col onel

Gl enn") ar r i ved at Casey' s of f i ce, escor t ed her of f t he base, and

r evoked her secur i t y cl ear ance. STG f or mal l y t er mi nat ed Casey' s

empl oyment t wo days l at er on November 17, 2011.

B. The Proceedi ngs Bel ow

I n a Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt f i l ed i n Apr i l 2012, Casey

asser t ed a Bi vens cl ai mf or vi ol at i on of her Fi r st Amendment r i ght s

agai nst t he Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of Def ense ( "DoD") , t he DHHS,

Mi chael Donl ey, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Secret ar y of t he Uni t ed

St at es Ai r For ce ( "Secr et ar y Donl ey") , Col onel Gl enn ( who had

escor t ed Casey of f - base) , and Carpent er ( t he Hanscomempl oyee whom

Casey had accused of assaul t ) . The Bi vens cl ai m al l eged t hat


8/24

- 8 -

Casey' s empl oyment had been t er mi nated i n r et al i at i on f or her

havi ng exer ci sed her Fi r st Amendment r i ght t o r epor t t o mi l i t ar y

pol i ce t hat Car pent er had assaul t ed her .

These def endant s subsequent l y f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss

based on l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. See Fed. R. Ci v. P.

12( b) ( 1) . At an ensui ng hear i ng, t he di st r i ct j udge di smi ssed t he

Bi vens cl ai m, hol di ng t hat t he Cont r act Di sput es Act , 41 U. S. C.

7101 et seq. , pr ovi ded Casey wi t h an exi st i ng al t er nat i ve

r emedi al scheme under whi ch t o br i ng her cl ai ms.

Lat er , t he di st r i ct j udge gr ant ed Casey l eave t o amend

her compl ai nt t o add a cl ai m of gender di scr i mi nat i on under Ti t l e

VI I agai nst STG, Kat hl een Sebel i us, i n her t hen- of f i ci al capaci t y

as Secr et ar y of t he DHHS ( "Secr et ar y Sebel i us" ) , and Secr et ar y

Donl ey. Casey subsequent l y di smi ssed her Ti t l e VI I cl ai m agai nst

STG and Secr et ar y Donl ey, l eavi ng Secr et ar y Sebel i us as t he sol e

r emai ni ng Ti t l e VI I def endant .

I n t he mi dst of al l of t hi s, wi t h t he consent of t he

par t i es, t he case was t r ansf er r ed f r om t he di st r i ct j udge t o a

magi st r at e j udge. 2 Secr et ary Sebel i us moved f or summary j udgment ,

argui ng i n r el evant par t t hat Casey was an empl oyee of STG, not

t he DHHS, and t hat t he DHHS was t heref ore not l i abl e t o Casey under

2 The case was act ual l y tr ansf er r ed t wi ce: f i r st f r omt he di st r i ct j udge t o a magi st r at e j udge, t hen f r om one magi st r at ej udge t o another when t he f i r st r et i r ed.


9/24

- 9 -

Ti t l e VI I . The magi st r at e j udge agreed and grant ed summar y

j udgment .

II. Discussion

Casey now appeal s bot h t he di st r i ct j udge' s di smi ssal of

her Bi vens cl ai m and t he magi st r at e j udge' s ent r y of summar y

j udgment on her Ti t l e VI I cl ai m. We consi der each i ssue i n t urn.

A. Bi vens

I n Bi vens, t he Supr eme Cour t r ecogni zed f or t he f i r st

t i me an i mpl i ed pr i vat e r i ght of act i on f or damages agai nst f eder al

of f i cer s al l eged t o have vi ol at ed a ci t i zen' s const i t ut i onal

r i ght s. 403 U. S. at 397. The scope of const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons

r edr essabl e by means of a Bi vens act i on i s, however , qui t e l i mi t ed.

Bi vens i t sel f r ecogni zed a r i ght t o r el i ef agai nst f eder al of f i cer s

al l eged t o have under t aken a warr ant l ess search and sei zure i n

vi ol at i on of t he Four t h Amendment . I d. I n t he mor e t han f our

decades si nce, t he Supr eme Cour t has ext ended t he Bi vens hol di ng

beyond i t s or i gi nal Four t h Amendment conf i nes onl y t wi ce. See

Davi s v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228 ( 1979) ( empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on

i n vi ol at i on of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he Fi f t h Amendment ) ;

Car l son v. Gr een, 446 U. S. 14 ( 1980) ( Ei ght h Amendment vi ol at i ons

commi t t ed by pr i son of f i ci al s) . The Cour t ' s hesi t ancy t o ext end

Bi vens f ur t her st ems, at l east i n par t , f r om i t s r ecogni t i on t hat

Congr ess i s gener al l y bet t er - posi t i oned t o craf t appr opr i at e

r emedi al schemes t o addr ess const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons commi t t ed by


10/24

- 10 -

f eder al of f i cer s. See, e. g. , Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367, 373

( 1983) ( "Our pr i or cases . . . . est abl i sh our power t o gr ant

r el i ef t hat i s not expr essl y aut hor i zed by st at ut e, but t hey al so

r emi nd us t hat such power i s t o be exer ci sed i n t he l i ght of

r el evant pol i cy det er mi nat i ons made by t he Congr ess. " ) .

To dat e, bot h t he Supreme Cour t and t he Fi r st Ci r cui t

have decl i ned t o expr essl y ext end Bi vens t o encompass a Fi r st

Amendment cl ai m. See i d. at 390 ( " [ W] e decl i ne ' t o cr eat e a new

subst ant i ve l egal l i abi l i t y [ f or Fi r st Amendment vi ol at i ons]

wi t hout l egi sl at i ve ai d . . . . ' ") ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

St andar d Oi l Co. , 332 U. S. 301, 302 ( 1947) ) ; see al so Ashcr of t v.

I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 675 ( 2009) ( not i ng t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has

so f ar "decl i ned t o ext end Bi vens t o a cl ai m soundi ng i n t he Fi r st

Amendment " ) ; Ai r Sunshi ne, I nc. v. Car l , 663 F. 3d 27, 35 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ( " I t i s quest i onabl e whet her Bi vens ext ends t o cases

asser t i ng a vi ol at i on of Fi r st Amendment r i ght s or r et al i at i on f or

t he exer ci se of t hose r i ght s. " ) . Undet er r ed, Casey ur ges us t o

r ecogni ze a Bi vens cl ai m pr emi sed on a vi ol at i on of her Fi r st

Amendment r i ght s.

I n deci di ng whet her t o r ecogni ze a Bi vens r emedy, cour t s

empl oy a t wo- st ep i nqui r y. Wi l ki e v. Robbi ns, 551 U. S. 537, 550

( 2007) . "I n t he f i r st pl ace, t her e i s the quest i on whet her any

al t er nat i ve, exi st i ng pr ocess f or pr ot ect i ng t he i nt er est amount s

t o a convi nci ng r eason f or t he J udi ci al Br anch t o r ef r ai n f r om


11/24

- 11 -

pr ovi di ng a new and f r eest andi ng r emedy i n damages. " I d. I f t her e

i s no such pr ocess al r eady i n pl ace, t he cour t must t hen consi der

whet her t her e exi st any "speci al f act or s counsel l i ng hesi t at i on"

t o t he cr eat i on of a new j udi ci al r emedy. I d. ( quot i ng Bush, 462

U. S. at 378) .

I n t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow, t he di st r i ct j udge di smi ssed

Casey' s Bi vens cl ai m af t er f i ndi ng t hat an al t er nat i ve pr ocess

exi st ed t o r emedy t he al l eged i nf r i ngement of her Fi r st Amendment

r i ght s. At a hear i ng on t he mot i on t o di smi ss f i l ed by t he DoD,

t he DHHS, Secr et ary Donl ey, Col onel Gl enn, and Carpent er , t he

di st r i ct j udge concl uded t hat t he Cont r act Di sput es Act af f or ded

Casey an avenue by whi ch t o pur sue her cl ai ms agai nst t hese

def endant s. Consequent l y, t he di st r i ct j udge di d not r each t he

quest i on of whet her t her e exi st ed speci al f act or s counsel l i ng

hesi t at i on t o t he cr eat i on of a Fi r st Amendment Bi vens r emedy.

We r evi ew de novo the di st r i ct j udge' s di smi ssal of

Casey' s Bi vens cl ai mf or l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. Town

of Barnst abl e v. O' Connor , 786 F. 3d 130, 138 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) . We

r evi ew t he al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt l i ber al l y, t r eat i ng wel l -

pl ed f act s as t r ue, and i ndul gi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n

Casey' s f avor . I d. I mpor t ant l y, we ar e not bound by t he di st r i ct

j udge' s r easoni ng, and we may af f i r m an or der of di smi ssal on any

gr ound evi dent f r omt he r ecor d. MacDonal d v. Town of East ham, 745

F. 3d 8, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .


12/24

- 12 -

The par t i es di sput e not onl y whether Casey i s el i gi bl e

t o br i ng sui t under t he Cont r act Di sput es Act , but al so whet her

speci al f act or s counsel agai nst our r ecogni t i on of a Bi vens r emedy

under t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case. As we expl ai n, however , we

decl i ne to resol ve ei t her of t hese quest i ons because we concl ude

t hat Casey' s Bi vens cl ai m i s pr oper l y di smi ssed f or a f ar mor e

basi c reason: i t f ai l s t o compl y wi t h t he pl eadi ng r equi r ement s

pr escr i bed by Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 8( a) ( 2) . 3

Bef ore we can reach t he subst ance of Casey' s Bi vens

cl ai m, we must t ake a moment t o consi der t he def endants agai nst

whom t hi s cl ai m i s l evi ed. As we have sai d, Casey' s Bi vens cl ai m

was assert ed agai nst t he DoD, t he DHHS, Secr et ary Donl ey ( i n hi s

of f i ci al capaci t y onl y) , Col onel Gl enn ( i n hi s per sonal and

pr of essi onal capaci t i es) , and Car pent er .

Thi s l i st may be qui ckl y whi t t l ed down, however , because

" t he Supr eme Cour t has r ef used to recogni ze a Bi vens r emedy agai nst

f ederal agenci es ( even t hose f or whi ch sover ei gn i mmuni t y has been

br oadl y wai ved) . " Tapi a- Tapi a v. Pot t er , 322 F. 3d 742, 746 ( 1st

3 We not e t hat Casey may be cor r ect i n her cont ent i ont hat she was i nel i gi bl e t o br i ng sui t under t he Cont r act Di sput esAct because, as an empl oyee of a subcont r act or , she was not acont r act or , nor di d her cl ai ms di r ect l y r el at e t o a cont r act wi t ht he f eder al gover nment . See 41 U. S. C. 7103( a) ( descr i bi ng t heCont r act Di sput es Act ' s appl i cabi l i t y t o "cl ai m[ s] by a cont r act oragai nst t he Feder al Gover nment r el at i ng t o a cont r act " ) . However ,because i t does not af f ect t he end r esul t , we need not expr essl yr esol ve t hi s i ssue.


13/24

- 13 -

Ci r . 2003) ( ci t i ng FDI C v. Meyer , 510 U. S. 471, 484- 86 ( 1994) ) .

Nor may a Bi vens sui t be br ought agai nst a f eder al of f i cer i n hi s

of f i ci al capaci t y. I d. ; see al so Rui z Ri ver a v. Ri l ey, 209 F. 3d

24, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . Accor di ngl y, Casey' s Bi vens cl ai m i s

f or ecl osed i nsof ar as i t i s asser t ed agai nst t he DoD and t he DHHS,

both f eder al agenci es, and agai nst Secr et ary Donl ey, whom Casey

sued onl y i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y. On t op of t hat , Casey concedes

i n her r epl y br i ef t hat her Bi vens cl ai m agai nst Car pent er i s not

vi abl e. Thus, when al l i s sai d and done, what was once a l i vel y

gat her i ng of Bi vens def endant s now appear s t o be r educed t o a par t y

of one: Col onel Gl enn. 4

"Under t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e, a compl ai nt

must pr ovi de ' a shor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he cl ai m showi ng

t hat t he pl eader i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef . ' " Car di gan Mount ai n Sch.

v. N. H. I ns. Co. , 787 F. 3d 82, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( quot i ng Fed. R.

Ci v. P. 8( a) ( 2) ) . The pl ai nt i f f need not demonst r at e t hat t he

cl ai m i s l i kel y t o pr evai l , but t he compl ai nt must i ncl ude enough

f act ual det ai l t o make t he asser t ed cl ai m "pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. "

I d. ( quot i ng I qbal , 556 U. S. at 678) .

4 I n her r epl y br i ef , Casey cl ar i f i es t hat , i f we wer et o remand the case t o t he di st r i ct cour t , she woul d seek t o amendher compl ai nt t o asser t a Bi vens cl ai m agai nst J udi t h Hol l , t heAFMC empl oyee who r equest ed Casey' s r emoval f r om t he CHPS Pr ogr amand f r om Hanscom. Because Casey di d not seek to add Hol l as adef endant i n the pr oceedi ngs bel ow, we cannot - and wi l l not -consi der t he vi abi l i t y of any such cl ai m on appeal . See Uni t edSt at es v. I som, 580 F. 3d 43, 53 n. 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .


14/24

- 14 -

I n eval uat i ng t he suf f i ci ency of a compl ai nt under

Rul e 8, we must f i r st di st i ngui sh "t he compl ai nt ' s f act ual

al l egat i ons ( whi ch must be accept ed as t r ue) f r om i t s concl usor y

l egal al l egat i ons (whi ch need not be credi t ed) . " Gar c a- Cat al n

v. Uni t ed St at es, 734 F. 3d 100, 103 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng

Mor al es- Cr uz v. Uni v. of P. R. , 676 F. 3d 220, 224 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ) .

Then, we must deter mi ne whether t he compl ai nt ' s f act ual

al l egat i ons ar e suf f i ci ent t o suppor t "t he r easonabl e i nf er ence

t hat t he def endant i s l i abl e f or t he mi sconduct al l eged. " Hal ey

v. Ci t y of Bost on, 657 F. 3d 39, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng I qbal ,

556 U. S. at 678) .

At t he out set of our anal ysi s, we must be cl ear about

t he l egal i ssue t hat i s i n di sput e. Car di gan Mount ai n Sch. , 787

F. 3d at 84. I n her Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt , t he oper at i ve pl eadi ng

f or pur poses of t he Bi vens cl ai m, Casey al l eged t hat t he def endant s

vi ol at ed her Fi r st Amendment r i ght s by t ermi nat i ng her empl oyment

i n r et al i at i on f or f i l i ng a pol i ce r epor t r egar di ng t he al l eged

assaul t per pet r at ed by Car pent er . Our i nqui r y, t hen, must

necessar i l y f ocus on t he f act ual al l egat i ons agai nst Col onel

Gl enn, and we must deci pher whether t hese al l egat i ons ar e

suf f i ci ent t o r easonabl y i nf er t hat he i s l i abl e f or Casey' s

( al l eged) unl awf ul t er mi nat i on.

Read i n i t s ent i r et y, t he Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt

cont ai ns t he f ol l owi ng al l egat i ons agai nst Col onel Gl enn:


15/24

- 15 -

( 1) " [ o] n sever al occasi ons, [ Casey] asked of f i ci al s at Hanscom,

i ncl udi ng [ Col onel Gl enn] , t o move her of f i ce t o anot her bui l di ng

so she woul d not need t o wor k near Car pent er " ; ( 2) " [ a] t al l t i mes,

Col [ onel ] Gl enn knew about Carpent er ' s har assment of [ Casey] and

t he negat i ve ef f ect of t he har assment on [ Casey] " ; and ( 3) " [ on

November 15, 2011, Col onel Gl enn] came to [ Casey] ' s of f i ce and

escort ed [ Casey] of f t he base. He t ol d [ Casey] t hat she shoul d

t ake al l her bel ongi ngs f r omt he of f i ce. . . . At t hi s t i me, . . .

[ Col onel Gl enn] . . . knew t hat [ Casey] had f i l ed a pol i ce r epor t

concerni ng t he assaul t by Carpent er on November 10. "

As we must , we const r ue t hese al l egat i ons l i ber al l y,

assume thei r ver i t y, and dr aw al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n Casey' s

f avor . O' Connor , 786 F. 3d at 138. Yet , even r ead t oget her , t hese

al l egat i ons f ai l t o pl ausi bl y suggest t hat Col onel Gl enn had any

i nvol vement whatsoever i n t he deci si on t o t er mi nate Casey' s

empl oyment . Rather , i t appears t hat Col onel Gl enn was si mpl y

assi gned t he t ask of escor t i ng Casey f r om her of f i ce and r evoki ng

her secur i t y cl earance once STG deci ded t o t er mi nate her

empl oyment . I n ot her wor ds, based on what i s bef or e us, i t i s

apparent t hat Col onel Gl enn di d not commi t t he of f ense of whi ch he

st ands accused.

For al l of t hese r easons, we concl ude t hat Casey' s Bi vens

cl ai m f ai l s t o pl ausi bl y demonst r at e her r i ght t o r ecover agai nst


16/24

- 16 -

any of t he def endant s t hat i t names. Ther ef or e, we AFFI RM i t s

di smi ssal by the di st r i ct j udge.

B. Ti t l e VI I

Fol l owi ng t he di smi ssal of her Bi vens cl ai m, t he

di st r i ct j udge gr ant ed Casey l eave t o f ur t her amend her compl ai nt

t o add a Ti t l e VI I gender di scri mi nat i on cl ai m agai nst STG,

Secr et ary Donl ey, and Secr et ary Sebel i us. I n a Thi r d Amended

Compl ai nt , Casey al l eged t hat t hese def endant s had unl awf ul l y

t er mi nat ed her empl oyment i n r et al i at i on f or her havi ng r epor t ed

t o Hanscom aut hor i t i es t hat Car pent er had di scr i mi nat ed agai nst

her on t he basi s of her gender and had assaul t ed her i n hi s of f i ce

on November 10, 2011.

Lat er , Casey di smi ssed her Ti t l e VI I cl ai m agai nst STG

and Secr et ar y Donl ey. Then, as the sol e r emai ni ng Ti t l e VI I

def endant , Secr et ary Sebel i us moved f or summary j udgment on behal f

of t he DHHS. The magi st r at e j udge f ound t hat Casey was not an

empl oyee of t he DHHS and was t heref ore i nel i gi bl e t o sue under

Ti t l e VI I . On t hi s basi s, t he magi st r at e j udge grant ed summar y

j udgment i n f avor of t he DHHS.

We revi ew or der s of summar y j udgment de novo, assessi ng

t he r ecord i n t he l i ght most f avorabl e t o the nonmovant and

r esol vi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n t hat par t y' s f avor . Bi ngham

v. Super val u, I nc. , __ F. 3d __, __, 2015 U. S. App. LEXI S 19794, at

*7 ( 1st Ci r . Nov. 13, 2015) . The ent r y of summary j udgment i s


17/24

- 17 -

appr opr i ate wher e "t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al

f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. "

I d. ( quot i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ) . Whi l e assessi ng t he nat ur e

of an empl oyment r el at i onshi p r equi r es a f act - speci f i c i nqui r y, we

may resol ve t hi s i nqui r y on summary j udgment i n t he absence of

di sput ed i ssues of mat er i al f act . Al ber t y- Vl ez v. Cor por aci n de

P. R. Par a La Di f usi n Pbl i ca, 361 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

Ti t l e VI I prohi bi t s an empl oyer f r omr et al i at i ng agai nst

an empl oyee f or engagi ng i n cer t ai n pr ot ect ed act i vi t y, whi ch

i ncl udes maki ng a char ge t hat t he empl oyer has engaged i n unl awf ul

di scr i mi nat i on on t he basi s of r ace or sex. 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 2,

3; see al so Ray v. Ropes & Gr ay LLP, 799 F. 3d 99, 107 ( 1st Ci r .

2015) . Her e, because onl y empl oyees may br i ng sui t under Ti t l e

VI I f or unl awf ul r et al i at i on, t he sol e i ssue we must consi der i s

whether Casey was an empl oyee of t he DHHS. See 42 U. S. C. 2000e-

3( a) ( " I t shal l be an unl awf ul empl oyment pr act i ce f or an empl oyer

t o di scr i mi nat e agai nst any of hi s empl oyees . . . because he has

opposed any pr act i ce made an unl awf ul empl oyment pract i ce by thi s

subchapt er . . . . " ) ( emphasi s added) ; see al so DeLi a v. Ver i zon

Commc' ns I nc. , 656 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( concl udi ng t hat t he

f act t hat t he def endant was not t he pl ai nt i f f ' s empl oyer was

"f at al " to her Ti t l e VI I r et al i at i on cl ai m) . Casey does not

di sput e t hat she was an empl oyee of STG, but she i nvokes t he so-

cal l ed "j oi nt empl oyment doct r i ne" t o cont end t hat she was al so an


18/24

- 18 -

empl oyee of t he DHHS. See, e. g. , But l er v. Dr i ve Aut o. I ndus. of

Am. , I nc. , 793 F. 3d 404, 408 ( 4t h Ci r . 2015) ( " [ T] wo par t i es can

be consi der ed j oi nt empl oyer s and t her ef or e bot h be l i abl e under

Ti t l e VI I i f t hey share or co- det er mi ne t hose mat t er s gover ni ng

t he essent i al t er ms and condi t i ons of empl oyment . " ( ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

Ti t l e VI I def i nes an "empl oyee" as "an i ndi vi dual

empl oyed by an empl oyer , " 42 U. S. C. 2000e( f ) , an el uci dat i on

t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has gener ousl y descr i bed i n a si mi l ar

cont ext as bei ng "compl et el y ci r cul ar and expl ai n[ i ng] not hi ng, "

Nat i onwi de Mut . I ns. Co. v. Dar den, 503 U. S. 318, 323 ( 1992) .

Wher e, as her e, t he st atut e cont ai ns t he word "empl oyee, " but does

not pl ai nl y def i ne i t , we "must pr esume t hat Congr ess has

i ncor por at ed t r adi t i onal agency l aw pr i nci pl es f or i dent i f yi ng

' mast er - ser vant r el at i onshi ps. ' " Lopez v. Massachuset t s, 588 F. 3d

69, 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

I n det ermi ni ng whether an empl oyment r el at i onshi p

exi st s, we l ook t o t he Equal Empl oyment Oppor t uni t y Commi ssi on

Compl i ance Manual ( "EEOC Manual " ) , whi ch set s f or t h a "non-

exhaust i ve" l i st of f act or s t o consi der : ( 1) whet her t he empl oyer

has t he r i ght t o cont r ol when, where, and how t he worker per f orms

t he j ob; ( 2) t he l evel of ski l l or exper t i se t hat t he wor k

r equi r es; ( 3) whet her t he work i s per f ormed on t he empl oyer ' s

pr emi ses; ( 4) whet her t her e i s a cont i nui ng r el at i onshi p bet ween


19/24

- 19 -

t he worker and t he empl oyer ; ( 5) whether t he empl oyer has t he r i ght

t o assi gn addi t i onal pr oj ect s t o t he wor ker ; ( 6) whet her t he

empl oyer set s t he hour s of wor k and t he dur at i on of t he j ob; ( 7)

whether t he worker i s pai d by t he hour , week, or mont h r at her t han

t he agr eed cost of per f or mi ng a par t i cul ar j ob; ( 8) whet her t he

worker hi r es and pays assi st ant s; ( 9) whet her t he work per f ormed

by t he wor ker i s par t of t he r egul ar busi ness of t he empl oyer ;

( 10) whet her t he empl oyer i s i n busi ness; ( 11) whet her t he worker

i s engaged i n hi s or her own di st i nct occupat i on or busi ness; ( 12)

whet her t he empl oyer pr ovi des t he worker wi t h benef i t s, such as

i nsur ance, l eave, or wor ker ' s compensat i on; ( 13) whet her t he

worker i s consi der ed an empl oyee of t he empl oyer f or t ax pur poses;

( 14) whether t he empl oyer can di scharge the worker ; and ( 15)

whet her t he worker and the empl oyer bel i eve t hat t hey ar e creat i ng

an empl oyer - empl oyee r el at i onshi p. Lopez, 588 F. 3d at 85 ( quot i ng

2 Equal Emp' t Oppor t uni t y Comm' n, EEOC Compl i ance Manual , 2- I I I ,

at 5716- 17 ( 2008) ) . Whi l e t hese f act or s ar e t o be wei ghed i n t hei r

t ot al i t y, "i n most si t uat i ons, t he ext ent t o whi ch t he hi r i ng par t y

cont r ol s ' t he manner and means' by whi ch the worker compl et es her

t asks wi l l be t he most i mpor t ant f act or i n t he anal ysi s. " Al ber t y-

Vl ez, 361 F. 3d at 7 ( ci t i ng Ei senber g v. Advance Rel ocat i on &

St or age, I nc. , 237 F. 3d 111, 114 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) ) .

I n a t hi r t y- one- page wr i t t en deci si on, t he magi st r at e

j udge car ef ul l y consi dered t he r el evant EEOC Manual f act or s and


20/24

- 20 -

concl uded t hat Casey was not an empl oyee of t he DHHS. Our own

r evi ew of t hese f act or s di ct at es t he same r esul t . 5

1. The Ri ght t o Cont r ol

Casey f ocuses pr i nci pal l y on t he i ssue of cont r ol , and

she argues t hat t he magi st r ate j udge over l ooked evi dence t hat J esse

Bur k, Casey' s i mmedi at e super vi sor , acted as an agent of t he DHHS.

See Romn- Ol i ver as v. P. R. El ec. Power Aut h. , 655 F. 3d 43, 51 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ( not i ng t hat Ti t l e VI I was i nt ended t o ensur e r espondeat

super i or l i abi l i t y of an empl oyer f or t he act s of i t s agent s)

( quot i ng Mason v. St al l i ngs, 82 F. 3d 1007, 1009 ( 11t h Ci r . 1996) ) .

To be sure, t he r ecor d est abl i shes t hat Burk exerci sed si gni f i cant

cont r ol over Casey' s per f or mance of her j ob dut i es. For exampl e,

based on cr i t er i a suppl i ed by t he FOH Di vi si on, Bur k devel oped t he

heal t h and wel l ness cur r i cul umt hat Casey was t o t each at Hanscom.

What i s mor e, bef or e her t r ansf er f r om STG t o Mi l l enni um, Bur k

compl eted Casey' s per f ormance eval uat i ons and moni t ored Casey' s

cal endar t o ensur e t hat Casey was usi ng her t i me i n accor dance

wi t h AFMC and FOH Di vi si on r equi r ement s. The r ecor d l i kewi se

est abl i shes t hat al t hough Bur k was an empl oyee of STG ( and l ater ,

of Mi l l enni um) , she wor ked cl osel y wi t h, and r epor t ed di r ect l y to,

Susan St ei nman, a DHHS empl oyee. Casey r el i es on t hi s evi dence t o

5 Al t hough we conf i ne our wr i t t en deci si on t o the f act or smade most r el evant by t he r ecord, we have consi der ed each of t hef i f t een f act or s pr escr i bed by the EEOC Manual .


21/24

- 21 -

suggest t hat Burk act ed as an agent of t he DHHS, and t hat t he DHHS

t her ef or e exer ci sed act ual cont r ol over t he per f or mance of her j ob

dut i es.

We do not consi der t he i ssue of cont r ol i n a vacuum.

Rat her , cont r ol "must be consi der ed i n l i ght of t he wor k per f or med

and t he i ndust r y at i ssue. " Al ber t y- Vl ez, 361 F. 3d at 9. Her e,

as we have sai d, t he CHPS Progr am was cr eat ed pur suant t o an

i nt eragency agreement bet ween t he FOH Di vi si on and t he AFMC. The

FOH Di vi si on was r esponsi bl e f or r ecrui t i ng cont r act or s t o

admi ni st er t he CHPS Progr am. I n 2007, when STG hi r ed Casey, STG

had been awarded t he gover nment cont r act t o per f ormt hi s f unct i on.

I t shoul d t hus come as no surpr i se t hat t he DHHS, as one of t he

t wo gover nment ent i t i es ul t i mat el y responsi bl e f or t he CHPS

Progr am, woul d exert some measur e of cont r ol over STG' s ( and l at er

Mi l l enni um' s) per f or mance.

However , t he measure of cont r ol t hat t he DHHS empl oyed

i n set t i ng per f or mance cr i t er i a and over seei ng Bur k' s

admi ni st r at i on of t he CHPS Pr ogr am cannot be f ai r l y vi ewed as

r ender i ng Burk an agent , or Casey an empl oyee, of t he DHHS. As

cour t s have recogni zed, ever y gover nment cont r act ( i ndeed, most

ever y ser vi ce cont r act ) r equi r es some measur e of over si ght of t he

cont r act or by t he hi r i ng par t y. See, e. g. , Ki ng v. Dal t on, 895 F.

Supp. 831, 838 n. 10 ( E. D. Va. 1995) ( "Presumabl y, any l arge

government cont r act wi l l be supervi sed t o some ext ent by the


22/24

- 22 -

r el evant gover nment agency. Yet , t he wor d ' empl oyee' i n [ Ti t l e

VI I ] cl ear l y does not encompass ever y gover nment cont r act or . " ) .

On t hese f act s, we agr ee wi t h t he magi st r at e j udge that t he DHHS

di d not exer t such cont r ol over Casey' s per f or mance of her j ob

dut i es as t o est abl i sh an empl oyment r el at i onshi p.

2. Compensat i on, Benef i t s, and Tax Treat ment

Next , t he r ecor d i ndi sput abl y est abl i shes t hat STG - not

t he DHHS - cont r ol l ed t he t er ms and condi t i ons of Casey' s

empl oyment by set t i ng her sal ar y and pr ovi di ng her wi t h benef i t s.

Li kewi se, i t was STG t hat pr ovi ded Casey wi t h her annual W- 2 f orm.

3. The Ri ght t o Di schar ge

Casey cont ends t hat t he DHHS had de f act o aut hor i t y t o

t ermi nat e her empl oyment and i s t heref ore pr oper l y vi ewed as her

empl oyer . We have caref ul l y r evi ewed t he r ecord evi dence r egardi ng

t he event s of November 14 and 15, 2011, when news of t he November

10 conf r ont at i on bet ween Casey and Carpent er came t o l i ght . I n e-

mai l corr espondence dur i ng t hi s per i od, both Hol l ( an AFMC

empl oyee) and St ei nman ( an FOH Di vi si on empl oyee) i ndi cat ed t hei r

bel i ef t hat Casey' s empl oyment shoul d be t er mi nated. Casey

suggest s t hat t hi s i s evi dence t hat t he DHHS had t he aut hor i t y t o

or der her t er mi nat i on.

We r ej ect t hi s suggest i on. As an i ni t i al mat t er , whi l e

Hol l and St ei nman, as r epr esent at i ves of t he t wo gover nment

agenci es r esponsi bl e f or t he CHPS Progr am, no doubt had some


23/24

- 23 -

measur e of i nf l uence, t her e i s si mpl y no recor d suppor t f or t he

concl usi on t hat anyone other t han STG had t he ul t i mate aut hor i t y

t o f i r e Casey. See Bar t on v. Cl ancy, 632 F. 3d 9, 18- 19 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant ci t y mayor was not an empl oyer

of t he pl ai nt i f f hi gh school at hl et i cs coach wher e, despi t e hi s

" i ndi r ect i nf l uence, " t he mayor di d not have t he ul t i mat e aut hor i t y

t o f i r e t he coach) .

What i s more, we consi der t he EEOC Manual f act or s i n

t hei r speci f i c cont ext . Al ber t y- Vl ez, 361 F. 3d at 9. Her e, i t

appear s t hat St ei nman and Hol l were concer ned because Casey was

act i ng unpr edi ct abl y and was unaccount ed f or at a secur e mi l i t ar y

f aci l i t y. Whi l e bot h expr essed a bel i ef t hat Casey' s empl oyment

shoul d be t er mi nat ed, bot h seem t o have been pr i nci pal l y f ocused

on l ocat i ng Casey, havi ng her r emoved f r om t he base, and r evoki ng

her secur i t y cl ear ance. Mi ndf ul of t hi s uni que cont ext , we cannot

concl ude t hat a gover nment agency i s appr opr i atel y exposed t o Ti t l e

VI I l i abi l i t y mer el y by voi ci ng concer ns about saf et y r i sks posed

by an empl oyee of a gover nment cont r act or . 6

6 Thi s i s par t i cul ar l y t r ue her e, wher e Casey' sempl oyment at Hanscom was dependent on her havi ng the appr opr i at esecur i t y cl ear ance. The r ecor d suggest s t hat STG di d not haveposi t i ons avai l abl e i n Massachuset t s ot her t han Casey' s posi t i onat Hanscom. Ther ef ore, once Casey' s secur i t y cl earance wasr evoked, STG seems t o have been l ef t wi t h l i t t l e choi ce but t ot ermi nat e her empl oyment .


24/24

4. The Bel i ef of t he Par t i es

Fi nal l y, we not e t he undi sput ed under st andi ng of bot h

Casey and t he DHHS t hat Casey was sol el y an empl oyee of STG. When

STG f i r st hi r ed Casey i n 2007, t he paper wor k i t pr ovi ded t o her

descr i bed her as a "f ul l - t i me empl oyee wi t h STG I nt er nat i onal . "

Then, i n 2010, when Casey execut ed her new empl oyment agreement

wi t h STG f ol l owi ng t he subcont r act wi t h Mi l l enni um, STG pr ovi ded

her wi t h a si mi l ar set of document s pl ai nl y i dent i f yi ng her as an

STG empl oyee. On t op of t hat , t he subcont r act agr eement i t sel f

pr ovi ded t hat "[ a] l l per sons f ur ni shed by [ STG] . . . shal l be

consi der ed sol el y [ STG] ' s empl oyees or agent s . . . . " We can

i dent i f y no r ecor d evi dence whi ch woul d per mi t ei t her par t y to

r easonabl y bel i eve t hat Casey was an empl oyee of t he DHHS.

5. The Sum of t he Fact or s

Vi ewi ng t he EEOC Manual f act or s i n t hei r t ot al i t y, we

concur wi t h t he magi st r at e j udge t hat t her e i s no genui ne di sput e

as t o any mat er i al f act r egardi ng Casey' s st atus as an empl oyee

sol el y of STG. Ther ef ore, t he ent r y of summary j udgment i n f avor

of t he DHHS on Casey' s Ti t l e VI I cl ai m was pr oper .

III. Conclusion

For t he r easons we have descr i bed, t he di st r i ct j udge' s

di smi ssal of t he Bi vens cl ai m and t he magi st r at e j udge' s ent r y of

summary j udgment on t he Ti t l e VI I cl ai m are bot h hereby AFFI RMED.

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Casey v. Department of Defense, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents