Barnes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 219

ORDER - Plaintiff Patricia Barnes's fourth amended complaint (ECF No. 184 ) is the operative complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 186 ) is granted in part and denied in part. The First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed for the reasons stated herein. Barnes's ADEA disparate-impact age discrimination is the only remaining claim in this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Andrew Saul with Kilolo Kijakazi pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Barnes's motion to supplement (ECF No. 218 ) is granted. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/2/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 14

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

PATRICIA G. BARNES,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10
11

Case No. 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-WGC

v.

ORDER

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration, et al.,
Defendants.
I.

SUMMARY

12

On July 6, 2021, the Court granted pro se Plaintiff Patricia Barnes leave to file a

13

fourth amended complaint to amend her First Amendment retaliation claim under Bivens.1

14

(ECF No. 181 (“July 6 Order”).) Barnes thereafter filed her fourth amended complaint.

15

(ECF No. 184 (“FAC”).) Before the Court now is Defendants Kilolo Kijakazi2 and Jimmy

16

Elkins’s motion to dismiss the FAC. (ECF No. 186 (“Motion”).)3 Because Barnes’s revised

17

disparate-impact age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment

18

Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”) remains largely the same and special

19

factors counsel hesitation to extend a Bivens action—as further explained below—

20

Defendants’ Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1See

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971).
2Andrew

Saul was the previous Commissioner of the United States Social Security
Administration (“SSA”). Kilolo Kijakazi is the current Acting Commissioner of the SSA and
thus the proper Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) (“An action does not abate when a
public officer who is a party in an official capacity . . . ceases to hold office while the action
is pending. The officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party.”).
3The

parties filed a corresponding response and reply. (ECF Nos. 198, 210.)
Barnes also filed a motion to supplement her response to offer a recent Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals’ decision relating to a First Amendment issue. (ECF No. 218.) The Court grants
the motion to supplement.

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 14

1

II.

BACKGROUND

2

The following facts are taken from Barnes’s FAC (ECF No. 184), unless noted

3

otherwise. This action stems from Barnes’s non-selection for one of several attorney-

4

advisor positions with the SSA in Reno, Nevada. (Id.) At the relevant time of the events

5

that give rise to this action, Barnes was 60 years of age. (Id. at 4.)

6

A.

Attorney-Advisor Positions

7

In 2011, Barnes noticed a legal assistant position with the SSA in Reno, advertised

8

on the federal government’s recruiting site. (Id.) Barnes reached out to the SSA to inquire

9

if they were hiring attorneys. (Id.) SSA Selection Officer Jimmy Elkins told Barnes there

10

were open attorney-advisor positions, but Barnes would have to apply promptly because

11

recruitment was closing. (Id.) Despite not being provided information and unable to locate

12

a posting online, Barnes emailed her application to Elkins in June 2011. (Id. at 4-5.)

13

According to Barnes, the SSA did not have a standard practice for recruiting, and

14

hiring managers decided how to recruit. (Id. at 5.) Elkins’s recruitment for the positions

15

included sending an email to the law school at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas

16

(“UNLV”), and to the Peace Corps office. (Id. at 6.) Barnes alleges that 26 applicants

17

applied, and of those applicants, only one was over 40 years of age. (Id.) Elkins based

18

his hiring decision on whether an applicant had a personality that fit the SSA’s culture and

19

mission. (Id. at 8.) Moreover, Elkins held Barnes to a higher standard than younger

20

applicants. (Id.) In July 2011, Barnes was notified that she had not been selected. (Id. at

21

9.) Barnes alleges the SSA’s recruitment, evaluation, and selection of attorney-advisors

22

had a “disproportionate and adverse” impact on job seekers aged 40 and over, which

23

included Barnes. (Id. at 15.) Barnes thus brings a ADEA disparate-impact age

24

discrimination claim against the SSA. (Id. at 14-16.)

25

B.

Employment Law Blog

26

During the relevant period, Barnes wrote articles on her employment law blog,

27

When the Abusers Goes to Work. (Id. at 13.) The blog was created in 2010 and chronicles

28

legal development with respect to workplace bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
2

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 3 of 14

1

(Id.) Barnes alleges that Elkins stated in his deposition that he considered Barnes

2

“unacceptable” because of her blog and that the blog was a “red flag.” (Id. at 14.) Elkins

3

further stated that he did not select Barnes because of her blog. (Id.) According to Barnes,

4

Elkins—as a SSA employee and in his individual capacity—retaliated against Barnes by

5

not hiring her due to the views she expressed on her blog. (Id. at 17.) Barnes brings a

6

First Amendment retaliation claim against Elkins under Bivens. (Id.)

7

C.

Procedural History

8

This case has a nonlinear procedural history, and the Court recites it here as it is

9

relevant to this order. Barnes’s previous second amended complaint (“SAC”) asserted

10

four claims against the SSA including an ADEA disparate-impact age discrimination

11

claim. (ECF No. 86 at 13-17.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. (ECF No.

12

87.) The Court granted that motion, finding that Barnes had failed to state a claim for

13

which relief may be granted, and Barnes appealed. (ECF Nos. 142, 143, 156.)

14

The Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part, and reversing in part, this

15

Court’s order dismissing the SAC and remanded for further proceedings. (ECF No. 159.)

16

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s dismissal of three of Barnes’s claims.

17

(Id. at 3-5.) The Ninth Circuit, however, held that Barnes’s ADEA disparate-impact claim

18

was plausible and remanded the case to proceed on that claim, and issued its mandate.

19

(ECF Nos. 159 at 5; 161.) Accordingly, on March 4, 2021, this Court ordered Defendants

20

to respond to the remaining claim in the SAC, which Defendant timely filed on April 5,

21

2021. (ECF Nos. 163, 166.) In a separate order dated March 23, 2021, the Court gave

22

Barnes until April 23, 2021, to file her motion to amend the SAC. (ECF No. 165.)

23

On April 23, 2021, Barnes filed a motion to amend her SAC, and attached a

24

proposed third amended complaint (“TAC”). (ECF Nos. 167, 167-1.) In her proposed TAC,

25

Barnes asserted four claims. (ECF No. 167-1 at 12-22.) In addition to her ADEA disparate-

26

impact age discrimination claim and two previously dismissed claims, Barnes alleged a

27

First Amendment retaliation claim under Bivens. (Id.) Because Barnes alleged the same

28

claims already dismissed on mandate, and because Barnes did not identify a cognizable
3

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 4 of 14

1

Bivens action regarding her First Amendment claim, the Court’s July 6 Order denied

2

Barnes’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 181.) However, Barnes was granted leave to file a

3

fourth amended complaint to amend her First Amendment retaliation claim and “only that

4

claim.” (Id.)

5

III.

DISCUSSION

6

In the Motion, Defendants make the following eight arguments: (1) Barnes’s

7

amended ADEA disparate-impact claim violates the Court’s July 6 Order; (2) Barnes lacks

8

standing to pursue her disparate impact claim; (3) Barnes cannot bring a Bivens claim

9

against Elkins in his official capacity;4 (4) the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Barnes’s

10

Bivens claim because the claim presents a “new context” and “special factors” counsel

11

against expanding Bivens; (5) Elkins is afforded qualified immunity; (6) Barnes’s Bivens

12

claim violates the law-of-the-case doctrine and the Ninth Circuit’s mandate; (7) Barnes

13

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to her First Amendment

14

retaliation claim; and (8) Barnes did not perfect service of process.5 (ECF No. 186 at 4-

15

15.) Because the Court agrees that special factors counsel against expanding Bivens to

16

Barnes’s First Amendment retaliation claim but disagrees that her disparate impact claim

17

should be dismissed, the Court will address the parties’ relevant arguments with respect

18

to these two claims below.

19

A.

20

As mentioned above, Defendants argue that Barnes cannot bring a First

21

Amendment retaliation claim against Elkins in his personal capacity because the claim

22

presents a “new context” and “special factors” counsel against expanding Bivens. (ECF

23

No. 186 at 7-11.) More specifically, Defendants argue that Barnes’s claim bears little

24

resemblance to the circumstances previously endorsed as suitable for a Bivens remedy

25

by the Supreme Court as set forth in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1860 (2017). (Id.

26
27
28

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

4In

her response, Barnes concedes this argument but states that she retains her
First Amendment retaliation claim against Elkins in his personal capacity. (ECF No. 198
at 8-9.)
5Defendants

state in their reply that they withdraw this challenge as Barnes had
recently served Elkins. (ECF No. 210 at 12, n.12.)
4

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 5 of 14

1

at 8.) Additionally, Defendants argue that, when considering special factors, the Civil

2

Service Reform Act (“CSRA”) provides an alternative remedy and allowing federal

3

government officials to be personally liable for their official acts would lead to difficulties

4

and expenses. (Id. at 9-11.) Barnes counters by citing several cases to support her

5

position that since Abbasi, the Ninth Circuit has recognized First Amendment retaliation

6

claims under Bivens. (ECF No. 198 at 10-11.) Because the Court agrees with Defendants

7

that special factors counsel against expanding Bivens to First Amendment retaliation

8

claims in this new employment context, the Court will first set forth the legal standard and

9

the discuss the parties’ arguments as to special factors.

10

1.

Bivens

11

The United States is a sovereign, and as such, is immune from suits unless it has

12

expressly waived such immunity and consented to being sued. See United States v.

13

Shaw, 309 U.S. 495, 500-01 (1940). A suit against officers or employees of the United

14

States in their official capacity is a suit against the United States. See Gilbert v. DaGrossa,

15

756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). However, in Bivens, the Supreme Court held that a

16

violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights by federal officials acting under the color

17

of federal law gives rise to a federal cause of action for damages for their unconstitutional

18

conduct. 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Since Bivens, the Supreme Court has recognized—in

19

addition to the Fourth Amendment—violations of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments in a

20

Bivens action. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 248-49 (1979) (Fifth Amendment);

21

Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 16-18 (1980) (Eighth Amendment). More recently, the

22

Supreme Court has also held that “expanding the Bivens remedy is now considered a

23

‘disfavored’ judicial activity.” Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1848 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

24

U.S. 662, 675 (2009)). In 2021, the Ninth Circuit extended a Bivens remedy to a First

25

Amendment retaliation claim arising in a new context. See also Boule v. Egbert, 998 F.3d

26

370, 390 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. granted in part, 142 S. Ct. 457 (2021).

27

When asked to extend Bivens, the Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to

28

“engage in a two-step inquiry.” Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 743 (2020). First,
5

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 6 of 14

1

courts determine whether an action presents “a new Bivens context” by asking whether

2

“the case is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by [the

3

Supreme] Court.”6 Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1859. If the action presents a new context, courts

4

then proceed to query whether “special factors counsel[ ] hesitation” against allowing the

5

requested remedy in the new context. Id. at 1857 (quoting Carlson, 446 U.S. at 18). While

6

the Supreme Court has not specified factors that courts must consider, in Hernandez, it

7

generally instructed courts to “consider the risk of interfering with the authority of the other

8

branches” and courts should “ask whether there are sound reasons to think Congress

9

might doubt the efficacy or necessity of a damages remedy and whether the Judiciary is

10

well suited, absent congressional action or instruction, to consider and weigh the costs

11

and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.” 140 S. Ct. at 743 (internal citations

12

and quotation marks omitted). “Thus, to be a ‘special factor counseling hesitation,’ a factor

13

must cause a court to hesitate before answering that question in the affirmative.” Abbasi,

14

137 S. Ct. at 1858 (internal quotation marks in original).

15

2.

New Context

16

In regard to the first step, the Court finds that Barnes’s Bivens claim presents a

17

new context. Barnes’s First Amendment retaliation claim is different in a “meaningful way”

18

than previous Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment claims recognized by the Supreme

19

Court respectively in Bivens, Davis, and Carlson. See id. at 1860 (articulating a

20

meaningful difference for a new context analysis includes “the constitutional right at

21

issue”). In the FAC, Barnes alleges facts relating to a SSA employee refusing to hire her

22

for an attorney-advisor position because of views she expressed on her blog. (ECF No.

23

184 at 17-18.) This First Amendment retaliation claim bears “little resemblance” to a

24
25
26
27
28

6Although

not an exhaustive list, the Supreme Court expressed some meaningful
differences for a new context including: “the rank of the officers involved; the constitutional
right at issue; the generality of specificity of the official action; the extent of judicial
guidance as to how an officer should respond to the problem or emergency to be
confronted; the statutory or other legal mandate under which the officer was operating;
the risk of disruptive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches; or
the presence of potential special factors that previous Bivens cases did not consider.”
Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1860.
6

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 7 of 14

1

cause of action for damages for violation of the Fourth Amendment freedom from

2

unreasonable searches and seizures, Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to be free

3

from gender discrimination, and Eighth Amendment rights for failure to provide medical

4

treatment. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1860. See Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); Davis, 442 U.S.

5

228 (1979); Carlson, 446 U.S. 14 (1980). See also Boule, 998 F.3d at 390 (holding that

6

the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim arises in a new context). Moreover,

7

Barnes’s claim is also meaningfully different in that it is brought against Elkins, a Selection

8

Officer for the SSA. See Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at 743 (citation omitted) (expressing that

9

the first step of the two-step inquiry may include determining if the claim involves a “new

10

category of defendants.”). Because Barnes’s claim presents a new context, the Court

11

proceeds to consider special factors that may counsel hesitation in extending Bivens.

12

3.

Special Factors

13

Defendants argue special factors that counsel against expanding Bivens include

14

the existence of the CSRA and the costs and consequences that will result in allowing a

15

Bivens remedy in this employment context. (ECF No. 186 at 9-11.) Barnes appears to

16

argue that the importance of the right to protected speech is a special factor in favor of

17

expanding Bivens, and she further asserts that the Ninth Circuit has done so in several

18

cases including Boule v. Egbert, 998 F.3d 370 (9th Cir. 2021). (ECF No. 198 at 9-11.)

19

The Court will address these arguments below and finds that special factors counsel

20

hesitation in expanding a Bivens remedy to the First Amendment retaliation claim in this

21

specific employment context.
i.

22

CSRA

23

Defendants direct the Court to subsection (b)(2) of the merit system principles of

24

the CSRA, 5 U.S.C. § 2301, to argue that special factors do not warrant an expansion of

25

Bivens.7 (ECF No. 186 at 9-10.) According to Defendants, the CSRA constitutes an

26
27
28

7Section

2301(b)(2) provides the following:
All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and
equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without
7

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 8 of 14

1

“alternative, remedial structure” to remedy constitutional challenges by job applicants like

2

Barnes. (Id. (quoting Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1858)). But Defendants’ reliance on §

3

2301(b)(2) is misplaced. A plain text reading of § 2301(b)(2) provides nothing by way of

4

“an alternative remedial structure . . . that alone may limit the power of the Judiciary to

5

infer a new Bivens cause of action,” Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1858, it merely articulates the

6

principles of the CSRA. Defendants notably do not direct the Court to language providing

7

an adequate remedy to protect Barnes’s interest in recovering damages for Elkins’s

8

alleged constitutional violation. Without more, the Court finds the CSRA does not counsel

9

hesitation to allowing the requested remedy in this new context. See AFGE Local 1 v.

10

Stone, 502 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223,

11

229-30 (D.C. Cir. 1988)) (“[W]e do not suggest that the CSRA precludes the exercise of

12

federal jurisdiction over the constitutional claims of federal employees and job applicants

13

altogether. On the contrary, time and again this court has affirmed the right of civil

14

servants to seek equitable relief against their supervisors, and the agency itself, in

15

vindication of their constitutional rights.”).

16

ii.

Costs & Consequences

17

Defendants argue the costs and consequences of extending a Bivens remedy to

18

allow a government employee to be sued for damages, in their personal capacity, are

19

special factors that counsel against extending the remedy. (ECF No. 186 at 10.) If a cost-

20

benefit analysis is necessary, the Supreme Court has instructed that the issue falls onto

21

Congress and not on the courts. (Id. (citation omitted)). Additionally, Defendants argue

22

that “there is a danger that fear of being sued will dampen the ardor of all but the most

23

resolute, or the most irresponsible public officials, in the unflinching discharge of their

24

duties.” (Id. (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814 (1982)). Barnes counters

25

that the Ninth Circuit is well-equipped to “weigh the costs of constitutional violations.”

26
27
28

regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper
regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.
5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(2).
8

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 9 of 14

1

(ECF No. 198 at 16 (quoting Lanuza v. Love, 899 F.3d 1019, 1032 (9th Cir 2017)). The

2

Court disagrees with Barnes.

3

In Lanuza, the Ninth Circuit held special factors did not counsel against extending

4

a Bivens remedy to an alien’s Fifth Amendment due process claim against a government

5

immigration attorney. 899 F.3d 1019. Indeed, the court stated—and as Barnes quotes in

6

part—that “[j]udges are particularly well-equipped to weigh the costs of constitutional

7

violations that threaten the credibility of our judicial system.” Id. at 1032 (emphasis

8

added). The emphasized portion of this quote, which Barnes omitted in her brief, is

9

important. That is because the Ninth Circuit provided a Bivens remedy “on narrow and

10

egregious facts” in a case “where an immigration official and officer of the court forged

11

and submitted evidence in a deportation proceeding to deprive an individual of his right

12

to relief.” Id. at 1021, 1028. Because the government attorney was an officer of the court,

13

the Ninth Circuit stated that “[m]ore often than not, the Judicial Branch, not Congress, . .

14

. is responsible for remedying circumstances where a court’s integrity is compromised by

15

the submission of false evidence.” Id. at 1033. Despite Barnes’s reliance on Lanuza, it

16

does not stand for the proposition that the courts, rather than Congress, is well-equipped

17

to weigh the costs of all constitutional violations. Rather, as the Supreme Court expressed

18

in Abbasi, when determining whether Congress or the courts should provide a damages

19

remedy, “[t]he answer most often will be Congress.” 137 S.Ct. at 1857.

20

Moreover, in Lanuza, the Ninth Circuit notably articulated that it did not foresee a

21

flood of potential claimants seeking to avail themselves of this specific Bivens action. Id.

22

at 1033. The same cannot be said here. As mentioned above, Defendants assert that

23

allowing government officials to be sued will dissuade them from performing duties in

24

assessing job applicants before deciding to hire applicants. (ECF No. 186 at 10.) Inherent

25

in Defendants’ argument is the danger of extending Bivens to a potential claimant—

26

anyone denied of federal employment and believes the denial was based on protected

27

speech. While the Ninth Circuit did not foresee a flood of potential claimants seeking to

28

avail themselves of a narrow Bivens action set forth in Lanuza, this Court is uncertain the
9

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 10 of 14

1

same holds true for First Amendment retaliation claims in the employment context. That

2

uncertainty therefore counsels hesitation.
iii.

3

Boule v. Egbert

4

According to Barnes, “ample” Ninth Circuit cases including Boule, 998 F.3d 370,

5

have recognized a First Amendment retaliation claim under Bivens.8 (ECF No. 198 at 10-

6

11.) Barnes appears to argue that the importance of the protected right to free speech

7

warrants its recognition as a Bivens claim. (Id. at 12-13.) Indeed, the Ninth Circuit in Boule

8

held that a Bivens remedy was available for a First Amendment retaliation claim. See 998

9

F.3d at 390 (“We therefore conclude that [plaintiff’s] First Amendment retaliation claim

10

arises in a new context.”). The court expressly recognized the importance of the

11

constitutional right. Id. at 391 (stating plaintiff’s “First Amendment retaliation claim

12

presents an even stronger case for recognition as a Bivens claim.”). But Boule is

13

distinguishable from the facts of this case and, despite Barnes’s reliance, counsel further

14

hesitation to not extend Bivens.

15

In Boule, the owner of an inn that touches the United States-Canada border sought

16

damages under Bivens against a border patrol agent for violating the owner’s Fourth and

17

First Amendment rights. Id. at 385. After the owner complained to the agent’s superiors

18

about an incident where the agent unwelcomely arrived onto the owner’s property and

19

caused him bodily injury, the agent retaliated. Id. at 386. The agent independently

20

contacted the Internal Revenue Service and asked the agency to look into the owner’s

21

tax status. Id. The agent also contacted the SSA, the state’s licensing department, and

22

the county accessor’s office, seeking for each entity to conduct inquiries into the owner’s

23

business activities. Id. The Ninth Circuit, in extending Bivens to the owner’s First

24

Amendment retaliation claim, determined that a stronger case existed for recognizing the

25

claim because the agent “was not carrying out official duties in asking for investigations”

26

of the owner. Id. at 391. However, the opposite is true here. Elkins is a Selection Officer

27
28

8The

Court has reviewed the cases cited by Barnes but finds further discussion of
these cases is unwarranted as they do not impact the Court’s analysis or the outcome of
this case.
10

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 11 of 14

1

for the SSA. Barnes alleges that Elkins stated he used comprehensive hiring procedures

2

and posted job vacancies so applicants could apply. (ECF No. 184 at 5.) He interviewed

3

Barnes and did not hire her. (Id. at 8, 9.) Elkins therefore was carrying out official duties

4

as a Selection Officer when he allegedly retaliated against Barnes by not selecting her

5

for an attorney-advisor position.

6

Additionally, in extending Bivens to a First Amendment retaliation claim in Boule,

7

the Ninth Circuit relied on Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006). 998 F.3d at 389-91.

8

In discussing Hartman, the Ninth Circuit stated that “[t]he [Supreme] Court wrote that in

9

the absence of probable cause—that is, the absence of an innocent motive—a Bivens

10

action would have been available” to plaintiffs alleging that federal prosecutors retaliated

11

against them for protected speech. Id. at 390 (citation omitted). The Court emphasized,

12

“[w]hen the vengeful officer is federal,” that officer “is subject to an action for damages on

13

the authority of Bivens.” Id. (emphasis omitted in part) (quoting Hartman, 547 U.S. at 256).

14

The extension of Bivens therefore relies upon whether federal officials “have no innocent

15

motive for their actions.” Id. Here, dissimilar to the agent in Boule, Elkins is not absent of

16

an innocent motive. Barnes alleges that Elkins stated that he did not hire Barnes because

17

he felt she was not sufficiently enthusiastic about the position. (ECF No. 184 at 9.) This

18

alone is an innocent motive and raises doubt that Elkins retaliated against Barnes, by not

19

hiring her, solely on the basis that she exercised her right to protected speech.

20

In sum, the existence of an innocent motive and the fact that Elkins was carrying

21

out official duties distinguishes this action from Boule. These distinctions, along with the

22

reasons articulated above, counsel this Court to hesitate in extending Bivens to a First

23

Amendment retaliation claim in this specific employment context. Recognizing that the

24

expansion of a Bivens remedy is a “disfavored judicial activity,” the Court declines to do

25

so in this action for the reasons stated herein. See Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1848. As such,

26

Barnes’s First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed.

27

///

28

///
11

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 12 of 14

1

B.

ADEA Disparate-Impact Age Discrimination Claim

2

Defendants make two arguments in relation to Barnes’s ADEA disparate-impact

3

age discrimination claim. The first pertains to whether Barnes violated the Court’s July 6

4

Order in amending her SAC. The second relates to whether Barnes has Article III standing

5

to pursue this claim. The Court disagrees with Defendants’ arguments and will address

6

them in turn.
1.

7

July 6 Order

8

In the July 6 Order, the Court granted “Barnes leave to file a fourth amended

9

complaint and amend her First Amendment retaliation claim, and only that claim.” (ECF

10

No. 181 at 1.) Because Barnes amended both her First Amendment and ADEA disparate-

11

impact claims, Defendants argue the latter claim should be dismissed as the Court merely

12

permitted Barnes to amend her First Amendment claim only. (ECF No. 186 at 4.) Barnes

13

counters that a reasonable interpretation of the July 6 Order bars previously dismissed

14

claims (ADEA disparate-treatment and retaliation), and it would be unreasonable to

15

interpret it as preventing her from updating her disparate-impact age discrimination claim.

16

(ECF No. 198 at 2.) Moreover, Barnes states that her revised claim addresses prior

17

criticism that the claim lacked sufficient statistical evidence and advances this case by

18

removing prior impediments. (Id.) The Court agrees with Defendants, but for the reasons

19

discussed below, declines to dismiss the claim.

20

Despite Barnes’s argument that it was reasonable to interpret the July 6 Order as

21

allowing her to update her claim, the Court was clear this was prohibited as Barnes was

22

only granted leave to amend her First Amendment retaliation claim. (ECF No. 181 at 1

23

(emphasis added) (stating that Barnes is granted leave to file the FAC “and amend her

24

First Amendment retaliation claim, and only that claim.”).) Nevertheless, the Court has

25

reviewed the FAC and finds that Barnes’s additional allegations are not significant to

26

change her ADEA disparate-impact age discrimination claim as Barnes is not adding new

27

claims. As such, the Court declines to dismiss this claim.

28

///
12

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 13 of 14

1

2.

Article III Standing

2

Defendants argue that Barnes does not have Article III standing to bring an ADEA

3

disparate-impact age discrimination claim because she has failed to make the requisite

4

showing that each of the three elements for standing have been met. (ECF 186 at 4-6.)

5

Specifically, Defendants argue the SSA’s recruitment policies that Barnes contends

6

discriminated against her, did not in fact prevent Barnes from applying for one of the

7

attorney-advisor positions. (Id.) Barnes appears to counter that the recruitment policies

8

caused multiple injuries. (ECF No. 198 at 2-8.) For example, Barnes states that she had

9

to “force her way” into the candidate pool and that she lacked critical information that was

10

provided to other candidates. (Id. at 4.) The Court disagrees with Defendants.

11

Three elements must be met to establish Article III standing—the plaintiffs must

12

have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of

13

the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”

14

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504

15

U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). Here, Barnes alleges she learned about the attorney-advisor

16

positions by chance and was “forced to interject herself” into the SSA’s hiring process at

17

a later date than other candidates. (ECF No. 184 at 16.) It is reasonable to infer that

18

Barnes was disadvantaged because Elkins never provided a copy of the vacancy

19

announcement for the positions in which Barnes nevertheless applied. (Id. at 5, 6.)

20

Elkins’s recruitment for the positions, however, consisted of sending a call for resumes to

21

UNLV’s law school and to the office of outgoing Peace Corps volunteers. (Id. at 6.)

22

According to Barnes, the average age of the population of both institutions is well below

23

40, and of the 26 applicants that applied, all but one were under 40. (Id. at 6, 9.) Barnes

24

was not hired, and she alleges the SSA’s “recruitment, evaluation, selection, and hire” for

25

the positions had a disparate impact on job applicants like her—age 40 and over. (Id. at

26

9, 15.) These allegations, accepted as true, offer that the SSA’s notification to some

27

populations about the positions disadvantaged Barnes and led to her, and others like her,

28

to be denied a position. Her injury is thus “fairly traceable” to the SSA’s challenged
13

Case 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-CSD Document 219 Filed 05/02/22 Page 14 of 14

1

conduct. See Spokeo, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1547. Accordingly, the Court finds that Barnes

2

has standing to bring this claim.

3

IV.

CONCLUSION

4

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several

5

cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and

6

determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the

7

issues before the Court.

8
9

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff Patricia Barnes’s fourth amended complaint
(ECF No. 184) is the operative complaint.

10

It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 186) is granted

11

in part and denied in part. The First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed for the

12

reasons stated herein. Barnes’s ADEA disparate-impact age discrimination is the only

13

remaining claim in this action.

14
15

The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Andrew Saul with Kilolo Kijakazi
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

16

It is further ordered that Barnes’s motion to supplement (ECF No. 218) is granted.

17

DATED THIS 2nd Day of May 2022.

18
19
20
21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
14