By letter ofl\/lay 6, 2016, plaintiffwas informed by Anthony Pierri, lCE`s Section Chiefofthe Personnel Security Unit, that “based upon the investigative results” of the pre- employment screening, she was “found unfit” due to “dishonest conduct as evidenced by your failure to honor just debts.” Compl. Attach. at 15 (f1tness letter). Plaintiff attributes Pierri’s decision to an alleged “negative reference” that certain senior managers at OCF() had allegedly provided “Anthony Pierri and/or Kim l'lodge.” Ia’. at 4¢5. Plaintiffsurmises that Pierri “overturned l\/ls. Hodge’s favorable suitability deteriniliation” that she alleges was “granted . . . via phone.” la’. at 5.
B. Related EEO Activity
l\/leanwhile, in l\/larch 2016, plaintiff filed an EEO complaint, charging that DHS Headquarters failed to hire her in February 2016 for an advertised l\/lanagement and Program Analyst position because of her prior EEO activity. Carelon I, 272 F. Supp. 3d at 60. Plaintiff sought to amend that charge in l\/lay 2016 to add a claim of reprisal arising from the foregoing fitness decision, but DHS denied plaintiffs request upon determining that the amended claim was “not like or related to [the original] Complaint, as it involves a different agency, i.e. ICE, and could not have been reasonably expected to grow out of the investigation of the original claim against this agency.” Ia’. (record citations omitted). 'l`he letter provided information about pursuing an EEO claim with ICE, including the name
and address of the office to contact. Ia’.
On reconsideration, DHS l*leadquarters affirmed the decision to deny the amendment as to lCE’s fitness decision but permitted plaintiffto add a charge based on the alleged “negative employment reference” OCFO managers Rhonda Brooks and Chip Fulghum gave in l\/lay 2016 “in the course” of plaintiffs “candidacy for the contractor position" at BarnAllen fechnologies, lnc. See Compl. Attach. at l (June 3, 20l6 Amended Acccptance Letter ~ Revised); see also Careton [, 272 F. Supp. 3d at 60¢61. The appeal letter again referred plaintiff to ICE’s EEO office to redress lCE’s negative fitness determinationl See Carelon I, 272 F. Supp. 3d at 60. As of October 26, 2016, ICE had no record of plaintiffs contacting lCE’s Office of Diversity and Civil Rights, which “is responsible for receiving and processing EEO complaints filed by employees and applications oflCE.” Ia’. at 61 (record citation omitted).
LEGAL STANDARD
A Rule l2(_b)(6) motion to dismiss challenges the adequacy of a complaint on its face, testing whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule l2(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of [her] eiititle[inelit] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Al‘lanlz`c Corp. v. Twambly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotations marks omitted). T he complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Aslzcrofl v. labal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he [C]ourt need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff[] if such inferences are
unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.” Kowal v. MC[ Commc'ns Co)"p., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
ln ruling on a Rule l2(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court may consider “any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint . . . without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.” Ba/cer v. He)'zcle/”son, 150 F. Supp. 2d 13, 15 (D.D.C. 2001) (citations omitted). This includes documents that are “referred to in the complaint and |:] central to the plaintiffs claim’ ” even if they are produced not by the plaintiff in the complaint but by the defendant in a motion to dismiss. Solomon v. Q/j(ice ofthe A)"cltl`l'ect ofthe Capl`tol, 539 F. Supp. 2d 347, 349-50 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Vanover v. Hanlman, 77 F. Supp. 2d 91, 98 (D.D.C. 1999), a}j”cl 38 lied. Appx. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2002)) (internal citations omitted). ln addition, the Court may consider “matters of which it may take judicial notice,” EEOC v. Sz‘. F/”ancl,`s Xavler Parochl`al Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997), including to some extent “court records from other cases,” Harcl v. D. C., Gov’l, 864 F.3d 671, 686 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
ANALYSIS A. The Proper Defendant
As before, the Court agrees that DHS Secretary Nielsen sued in her official capacity is the only proper defendant Therefore, Charles Chip Fulghum, Rhonda Brooks, Diana Huron, and Anthony Pierri are dismissed as party-defendants See Careton 1[, 304 F. Supp.
3d at 107; Ca/”elon [, 272 F. Supp. 3d at 63 (finding same).
B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies lt is well-established that federal employees must exhaust their administrative
remedies before bringing lawsuits in federal court under the antidiscrimination statutes, see Gz‘ll)el”t v. Napolltano, 958 F. Supp. 2d 9, 12 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing cases), for either a “retaliatory or discriminatory” act, Nal'l R.R. Passenger Co)”p. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 110 (2002). See 29 U.S.C. §§ 633a(b)~(d)_; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) (outlining EEOC procedures for federal employees); Gomez-Perez v. Pol'ter, 553 U.S. 474, 477 (2008) (a “federal employee who is a victim of retaliation due to the filing of a complaint of age discrimination may assert a claim under the federal-sector provision of the Agc Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”); Nl`slcey v. Kelly, 859 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (holding district court’s dismissal ofboth discrimination and retaliation claims “for failure to exhaust [ ] administrative remedies” was proper). ”l`he process for administrative adjudication has been described as follows:
To begin that process, the employee generally must contact an EEO
counselor to complain about the alleged violation within 45 days of its
occurrence. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105. . . .lfthe matter is not resolved through
counseling, the employee must timely file an administrative complaint
with the agency’s EEO office. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(a)-(c). After the
agency has the opportunity to investigate the matter, the complainant may
demand an immediate final decision from the agency or a hearing before
an EEOC administrativejudge. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(€)(2); 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.108(1'). A complainant may file a civil action within 90 days of
receipt of the final decision from the agency or after a complaint has been
pending for at least 180 days. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407. Ca/”elon [I, 304 F. Supp. 3d at 108 (quoting Koch v. Walter, 935 F. Supp. 2d 164, 169-70 (D.D.C. 2013)). Under the ADE/-\, an employee may forego the administrative process by
filing a notice of intent to sue with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) within 180 days ofthe alleged unlawful practice, and waiting thirty days before commencing suit in a United States district court. Careton [, 272 F. Supp. 3d at 63 (citing Peyas v. Lalzooa’, 919 F. Supp. 2d 93, 99 (D.D.C. 2013)); see also 29 U.S.C. §§ 633a(c)- (d).
Defendant contends that the time for plaintiff to pursue her remedies with regard to the negative fitness determination began to run on l\/lay 11, 2016, when she allegedly received Pierri’s letter. Defs.’ l\/lot. at 10-11. Plaintiff` does not claim, and the record does not show, that she contacted an EEO counselor within 45 days (by June 26, 2016), or filed an intent-to-sue notice with the EEOC within 180 days (by November 8, 2016). Rather, plaintiff contends, apparently based on the Court’s previous dismissal of certain claims without prejudice, that she was “granted . . . consent to re-file the case as it related to the unfavorable suitability decision issued by Anthony Pierri, Senior ICE official.” Opp’n at 2. ”l`heref`ore, she posits, this “case should be allowed to proceed without a decision . . . on the motion to reinstate the Age Discrimination Complaint also filed in October 2017,” in Carelon [. Ia’.; see also Opp’n Ex. A at 4-6. Plaintiff fails to mention that the motion to reinstate was denied because it sought to revive her claim predicated on EEO charges made in 2013, which was dismissed as time-barred See Carelon 1, No. 16-cv-1270, l\/larch 6, 2018 Order [Dkt. # 35]. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed next, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim.
C. Retaliation
“To prove unlawful retaliation, a plaintiff must show: (l) that [she] opposed a
practice made unlawful by Title Vll; (2) that the employer took a materially adverse action
against [her]; and (3) that thc employer took the action ‘because’ the employee opposed the practice.” McGrat/i v. Cli`nfon, 666 F.3d 1377, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The first element is not satisfied “if the practice the employee opposed is not one that could reasonably and in good faith be regarded as unlawful under Title Vll[.]” ]a'. The second element requires a showing of action “that would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of`discrimination.” Balocli v. Kemptlzorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Barll`nglon N. & Sama Fe Ry. Co. v. W/zlz‘e, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006)) (other citation omitted). 'l`he third element requires a causal link between the adverse employment action and the protected activity, i'.e., the protected activity “was the but-for cause” ofthe adverse decision. Um`v. ofTexas Sw. Mea’. Cir. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 343, 362 (2013) ('following Gross v. FBL Fz`na)/lcl`al Servlces, [nc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA case)).
ln support of her claim, plaintiff offers (1) sweeping allegations about her EE() activity since September 2013, and (2) Pierri’s negative fitness decision, which presumably led to the rescission ofthe federal contractor’sjob offer with ICE.2 Plaintiffhas not alleged in the complaint or opposition that Pierri was aware ofher EEO activity and disqualified
her for that reason. ln her opposition in fact, plaintiffclarifies that Pierri “did not directly
2 Plaintiffs claim that OCFO managers Rhonda Brooks and Chip Fulghum provided a negative employment reference to ICE was accepted as an additional charge in the EEO complaint against DHS Headquarters, see Compl. Attach. At 1 (June 3, 2016 Amended Acceptance Letter - Revised), and is not a subject of this litigation. To the extent that the complaint may be construed as including a claim based on that allegation, the outcome is the same because the presumed rescinded job offer based on the unfit decision is the only materially adverse action gleaned from the complaint
discriminate against” her “in the handling of [her] Public Trust re-investigation” but “simply failed to follow the appropriate procedures outlined in the DHS Personnel Security Procedures for former agency employees with outstanding debt.” Opp’n at 2. But a “finding of a failure on the part of the prospective employer to follow its own regulations and procedures, alone, may not be sufficient to support a finding of age discrimination . . .[I]t is essential that the claimant establish discriminatory motive.” Jolznson v. Lehman, 679 F.2d 918, 922 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (internal quotation mark omitted)). And without a viable employment discrimination claim, plaintiffs retaliation claim has no traction under federal law. See Haz'rston v. Vance-Cooks, 773 F.3d 266, 272 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (instructing that “[e]ven if a plaintiff was victimized by poor selection procedures, we may not second- guess an employer’s personnel decision absent demonstrably discriminatory motive”) (quoting Fischbaclz v. D.C. Dep’t of Correctl'ons, 86 F.3d 1180, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted)). CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and plaintiffs
complaint is DISMISSED. A separate Order consistent with this decision accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion
l
RICHARD J,{LEON! United States Judge