DODer accused of improper database searches jumps to TSA [priv]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

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/)