ROMERO v. GATES

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 5 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 11/8/10. (tfitz, )

ROMERO v. GATES

Doc. 23

IN T H E U N I T E D FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

r
C L E R K , us. i:: i; ^ A L E X A N D R A , V.K
Ji-»T

Alexandria Division

i

WILFREDO ROMERO,

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.

01:10-cv-314

R O B E R T M.

GATES,

SECRETARY

OF DEFENSE,
Defendant,

MEMORANDUM

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Robert M.

G a t e s ' s M o t i o n to D i s m i s s or, in the A l t e r n a t i v e , f o r S u m m a r y
J u d g m e n t . P r o se P l a i n t i f f W i l f r e d o R o m e r o a s s e r t s c l a i m s u n d e r T i t l e V I I of t h e C i v i l R i g h t s A c t of 1964, 42 U . S . C . § 2000e-16, §

t h e A g e D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n E m p l o y m e n t A c t (ADEA),
633a, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

29 U . S . C .

29 U.S.C.

§ 791 et

seq, a g a i n s t the D e f e n d a n t . F o r the r e a s o n s e x p l a i n e d below, D e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n to d i s m i s s is g r a n t e d . P l a i n t i f f b e g a n w o r k i n g as a G S - 1 2 a u d i t o r f o r t h e O f f i c e

of the I n s p e c t o r G e n e r a l in the D e p a r t m e n t of D e f e n s e ("DOD") in 1999. T h a t p o s i t i o n r e q u i r e d a s e c r e t s e c u r i t y c l e a r a n c e , w h i c h
he obtained. In 2004, Plaintiff's supervisor asked the Defense

I n t e l l i g e n c e A g e n c y C e n t r a l A d j u d i c a t i o n F a c i l i t y ("DIA-CAF") to g r a n t P l a i n t i f f a c c e s s to S e n s i t i v e C o m p a r t m e n t e d I n f o r m a t i o n

Dockets.Justia.com

{"SCI") so t h a t P l a i n t i f f c o u l d a s s i s t w i t h a u d i t i n g w o r k at t h e National Security Agency. After investigating Plaintiff, the
D I A - C A F i s s u e d a l e t t e r of i n t e n t o n S e p t e m b e r 24, 2 0 0 4

i n f o r m i n g P l a i n t i f f t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n h a d b e e n m a d e to
deny him clearance for SCI and that his preexisting secret
s e c u r i t y c l e a r a n c e w a s s u s p e n d e d . I n M a r c h of 2 0 0 5 , D I A - C A F

n o t i f i e d P l a i n t i f f t h a t h i s s e c r e t s e c u r i t y c l e a r a n c e was r e v o k e d a n d t h a t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a c c e s s to S C I was denied.
Romero then appealed, which was also denied. W h i l e P l a i n t i f f ' s a p p e a l of the r e v o c a t i o n of h i s s e c u r i t y

c l e a r a n c e was pending,

Plaintiff a p p l i e d f o r three vacant

a u d i t o r p o s i t i o n s w i t h the D o D ' s O f f i c e of t h e I n s p e c t o r
G e n e r a l . E a c h of t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t s f o r t h e s e p o s i t i o n s s t a t e d

t h a t the p o s i t i o n a d v e r t i s e d r e q u i r e d a v a l i d s e c u r i t y

clearance. B e c a u s e P l a i n t i f f ' s s e c u r i t y c l e a r a n c e h a d b e e n
revoked, Plaintiff was removed from the referral list for these

p o s i t i o n s . P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t t h e D o D ' s O f f i c e of t h e I n s p e c t o r G e n e r a l d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t h i m o n the b a s e s of

race, age, a n d d i s a b i l i t y w h e n it d i d not c o n d u c t a b a c k g r o u n d
investigation on him for those positions and did not refer or s e l e c t h i m f o r c e r t a i n v a c a n t a u d i t o r p o s i t i o n s f o r w h i c h he h a d
applied.

T h i s is not P l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t s u i t a r i s i n g f r o m t h e s e
facts. I n d e e d , o n M a y 24, 2 0 0 5 , P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n

complaint with DoD alleging that his indefinite suspension was
based on national origin and age discrimination. On September
19, 2005, Plaintiff and DoD entered into a Settlement Agreement
r e g a r d i n g P l a i n t i f f ' s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n complaint, w h i c h s t a t e d in
r e l e v a n t part:

The e m p l o y e e [Plaintiff] will w i t h d r a w the instant c o m p l a i n t as w e l l as c o m p l a i n t s p e n d i n g c o n c e r n i n g n o n - s e l e c t i o n for p r o m o t i o n to the G S - 5 1 1 - 1 3 p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the A g e n c y a n d will f o r e g o f i l i n g a discrimination complaint, or instituting a n y o t h e r
cause of action before courts or administrative bodies that were raised or could have been raised in [his

formal complaint].

On November 17, 2005, Plaintiff filed a second complaint with

DoD, alleging race, disability, and age discrimination based on DoD's September 20, 2005 failure to refer or select him for

promotion to the position of Auditor GS-511-13, listed on three
separate job vacancy announcements, and the DoD's denial of a
background investigation for the same announcements. DoD dismissed the Complaint, finding that the claim had been
r e s o l v e d through the S e p t e m b e r 19, 2005 settlement agreement.

Plaintiff appealed the DoD's dismissal to the Equal Employment

Oppportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Office of Federal Operations,
which ultimately reached a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge. The judge granted summary judgment in favor of DoD, and
the E E O C a f f i r m e d t h e j u d g e ' s ruling.

In addition to his employment discrimination complaints, Plaintiff also filed two separate appeals relating to his
suspsension and removal from the his position with Merit Systems
P r o t e c t i o n B o a r d ( M S P B ) . O n N o v e m b e r 30, 2 0 0 5 , R o m e r o f i l e d a n

M S P B appeal c h a l l e n g i n g his i n d e f i n i t e suspension, w h i c h was
d i s m i s s e d b y the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e J u d g e f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n

in light of the s e t t l e m e n t agreement. Later, P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a s e c o n d M S P B case, c h a l l e n g i n g his D e c e m b e r 2 0006 removal f r o m

his position, which was joined with his first MSPB case. In the
c o m b i n e d case, the Administrative Judge a f f i r m e d the removal in
an intial determination, and the MSPB denied review.

Plaintiff appealed the decision to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 18, 2007.
Plaintiff filed the requisite Federal Circuit Claim Form 10,

which required him to certify that "[n]o claim of discrimination by reason of race, sex, age, national origin, or handicapped
c o n d i t i o n h a s o r w i l l be m a d e in t h i s c a s e . " T h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t h e l d t h a t t h e M P S B d i d n o t e r r in f i n d i n g t h a t t h e A g e n c y h a d

complied with statutory requirements, but that the MSPB had
f a i l e d to a d d r e s s P l a i n t i f f ' s a r g u m e n t s t h a t D o D d i d n o t f o l l o w

its own regulations in revoking his security clearance. The
court remanded the case to the MSPB. O n M a r c h 25, 2010, the

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e J u d g e i s s u e d a n initial decisionn, f i n d i n g that
Romero had not established that the DoD failed to follow its own

regulations in r e v o k i n g his s e c u r i t y clearance. Plaintiff has f i l e d an appeal of this d e c i s i o n to the F e d e r a l Circuit.
O n M a r c h 8, 2010, P l a i n t i f f f i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t in the
i n s t a n t case, w h i c h w a s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s C o u r t f r o m t h e
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII,
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because he (1)

the ADEA,

and the

was neither referred

n o r s e l e c t e d f o r p r o m o t i o n to the p o s i t i o n of Auditor, G S - 5 1 1 13, u n d e r j o b V a c a n c y A n n o u n c e m e n t N u m b e r s I G 0 0 9 9 0 5 , IG0100005,

a n d I G 0 1 1 4 0 5 a n d (2) w a s d e n i e d a b a c k g r o u n d i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r
the same vacancy announcements.

D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t P l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e (1) t h i s C o u r t l a c k s s u b j e c t m a t t e r

j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r P l a i n t i f f ' s claims;

(2) P l a i n t i f f w a i v e d his

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c l a i m b y a p p e a l i n g to t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t ; a n d

(3) P l a i n t i f f w a i v e d h i s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c l a i m s t h r o u g h h i s

s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t w i t h the DoD.
Regarding Defendant's first ground for dismissal, Plaintiff h a s t h e b u r d e n of e s t a b l i s h i n g s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
W i l l i a m s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 50 F . 3 d 2 9 9 , 304 (4th Cir. 1995), but

he c a n n o t do so. T h i s Court lacks s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r claims r e l a t i n g to s e c u r i t y c l e a r a n c e decisions. " [ F ] o r e i g n
p o l i c y [is]
H a i g v.

t h e p r o v i n c e a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e E x e c u t i v e . "
453 U.S. 280, 283-84 (1981). "As to these areas of

Agee,

Art.

II d u t i e s the c o u r t s h a v e t r a d i t i o n a l l y s h o w n t h e u t m o s t

d e f e r e n c e to P r e s i d e n t i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . " U n i t e d S t a t e s v.
N i x o n , 4 1 8 U.S. 683, 7 1 0 (1974). F o r t h i s C o u r t t o h a v e

j u r i s d i c t i o n to r e v i e w Plaintiff's claims, Congress must expressly provide for s u c h a review. The F o u r t h Circuit has
f o u n d t h a t n e i t h e r T i t l e V I I n o r the R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A c t p r o v i d e
" t h e k i n d of u n m i s t a k a b l e e x p r e s s i o n of p u r p o s e t h a t t h e S u p r e m e

C o u r t . . . s u g g e s t e d in E g a n w o u l d be r e q u i r e d to s u p p o r t a

c o n c l u s i o n that C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d to s u b j e c t the E x e c u t i v e ' s s e c u r i t y c l e a r a n c e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s to s c r u t i n y for v i o l a t i o n s [of

these provisions]." Guillot v. Garrett, 970 F.2d 1320, 1325 (4th
Cir. 1 9 9 2 ) ; s e e D e p ' t o f N a v y v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 526-34

(1988)

(; R y a n v. Reno,

168 F . 3 d 520, 524

(D.C. Cir. 1 9 9 9 ) ;
1996). Like Title

B e r c e r r a v. D a l t o n ,

94 F . 3 d 145,

149 (4th Cir.

VII a n d the R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act,

the ADEA also lacks any

p r o v i s i o n t h a t w o u l d e n a b l e t h i s C o u r t to h e a r P l a i n t i f f ' s a g e
discrimination claims regarding his security clearance

revocation. See 26 U.S.C.

§ 633a. W i t h o u t s u c h u n a m b i g i o u s

l a n g u a g e , t h i s C o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i t i o n to h e a r P l a i n t i f f ' s
claims.

E v e n if t h i s C o u r t d i d h a v e the p o w e r to h e a r P l a i n t i f f ' s case, P l a i n t i f f c a n n o t b r i n g h i s c l a i m s i n t h i s C o u r t b e c a u s e he

is a l r e a d y p r o c e e d i n g o n h i s a p p e a l f r o m t h e M S P B d e c i s i o n s i n the F e d e r a l C i r c u i t . A f e d e r a l e m p l o y e e a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m of

employment d i s c r i m i n a t i o n g e n e r a l l y m u s t s e e k r e l i e f f r o m t h e

Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y ("EEO") o f f i c e of the e m p l o y i n g

agency. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). W h e n the federal employee
n o t o n l y w i s h e s to r a i s e a c l a i m of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , b u t a l s o s e e k s to a p p e a l a c i v i l s e r v i c e d e c i s i o n t h a t l i e s w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e M S P B -- s u c h as a d e m o t i o n o r r e m o v a l -- t h e e m p l o y e e c a n b r i n g b o t h t y p e s of c l a i m s e i t h e r b e f o r e the

a g e n c y ' s E E O o f f i c e as a " m i x e d c a s e c o m p l a i n t , " o r b e f o r e the
M S P B as a " m i x e d c a s e a p p e a l , " b u t n o t both. S e e 5 U . S . C . § 1204

( d e s c r i b i n g M S P B ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n ) ; 5 U.S.C. § 7 7 0 2 ( d e s c r i b i n g

MSPB j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r cases involving b o t h a n a c t i o n appealable
to the MSPB and discrimination claims); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302

( d e s c r i b i n g m i x e d c a s e s ) ; P u e s c h e l v. P e t e r s ,
(4th Cir. 2009).

5 7 7 F . 3 d 558,

563

I n s t e a d of f i l i n g a s i n g l e m i x e d c a s e -- e i t h e r a f o r m a l E E O complaint or an MSPB appeal--Plaintiff initiated three different p r o c e e d i n g s a f t e r s e t t l e m e n t of h i s f i r s t E E O c o m p l a i n t : (1)

R o m e r o f i l e d a f o r m a l E E O c o m p l a i n t d a t e d N o v e m b e r 17, 2005,

a s s e r t i n g that D O D ' s d e c i s i o n not to p r o m o t e h i m c o n s t i t u t e d a
v i o l a t i o n of T i t l e VII, t h e ADEA, a n d t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act;

(2) Plaintiff f i l e d a n M S P B a p p e a l c h a l l e n g i n g his i n d e f i n i t e s u s p e n s i o n o n N o v e m b e r 30, 2005; a n d (3) in J a n u a r y 2007, R o m e r o
f i l e d a n o t h e r M S P B a p p e a l a s s e r t i n g t h a t h i s r e m o v a l was
improper and discriminatory. Plaintiff pursued the MSPB cases

through f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s b y the M S P B a n d a p p e a l e d t h o s e
determinations to the Federal Circuit. Even after he received a

verdict from the Federal Circuit in June 2008,

Plaintiff

p r o c e e d e d w i t h h i s E E O case.
B a s e d o n h i s c o m p l a i n t , P l a i n t i f f s e e k s r e l i e f f r o m the E E O C d e c i s i o n , b u t i n l i g h t of the p o s t u r e of h i s r e l a t e d M P S B c o m p l a i n t s , he is b a r r e d f r o m p r o c e e d i n g i n t h i s forum. If a n

e m p l o y e e p u r s u e s a m i x e d c a s e a p p e a l t h r o u g h the MSPB, loses,
and wishes to appeal, he may appeal the MSPB's determination to

e i t h e r the F e d e r a l C i r c u i t o r t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t
court. 5 U.S.C. § 7703; Pueschel, 5 7 7 F . 3 d a t 5 6 3 . If, h o w e v e r ,

t h e e m p l o y e e c h o o s e s to a p p e a l a n M S P B d e c i s i o n to t h e F e d e r a l
Circuit, he must abandon any related discrimination claims, as

t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n

discrimination claims. Pueschel, 577 F.3d at 563. Plaintiff may
n o t p u r s u e a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a c t i o n in d i s t r i c t c o u r t w h i l e
simultaneously litigating the remainder of his claims before the

Federal Circuit because "Congress did not d i r e c t or contemplate
b i f u r c a t e d r e v i e w o f m i x e d c a s e s u n d e r § 7 7 0 2 . " W i l l i a m s v.

D e p ' t of the Army,

715 F . 2 d 1485, 1 4 9 0 (Fed. Cir. 1 9 8 3 ) . Thus, a

p l a i n t i f f ' s d e c i s i o n to a p p e a l a n M S P B d e c i s i o n to t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t w a i v e s t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t to b r i n g a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
claim in district court based "on the same or related facts."

S e e P u e s c h e l , 577 F . 3 d at 563. T h i s w a i v e r a p p l i e s to a l l

filings r a i s i n g r e l a t e d i s s u e s a n d a r i s i n g o u t of o v e r l a p p i n g
facts. See id.

P l a i n t i f f c h o s e to p r o c e e d w i t h a p p e a l s of b o t h of h i s M S P B

complaints. He was a w a r e this his a p p e a l s to the Federal C i r c u i t w o u l d b a r any s u b s e q u e n t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a c t i o n s a r i s i n g out of
the s a m e s f a c t s in d i s t r i c t court. In 2007, w h e n he a p p e a l e d h i s

s e c o n d M S P B a c t i o n to the Federal Circuit, P l a i n t i f f e x p r e s s l y

acknowledged in Federal Circuit Form 10 that he was waiving any
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n claims. The claims P l a i n t i f f b r o u g h t in the M S P B
a n d t h o s e he a s s e r t e d in the D o D E E O p r o c e s s a n d a p p e a l e d to the
E E O C i n v o l v e " t h e s a m e f a c t s o r r e l a t e d f a c t s , " id. at 564:

r e v o c a t i o n of R o m e r o ' s s e c u r i t y clearance. T h e s u s p e n s i o n a n d
r e v o c a t i o n of his s e c u r i t y c l e a r a n c e c a u s e d D o D n o t to p r o m o t e
him, the crux of Plaintiff's case before this court. As a

result,

all of Plaintiff's discrimination claims are barred in

t h i s f o r u m b e c a u s e t h e y a r i s e o u t of t h e s a m e f a c t s as t h e e m p l o y m e n t d e c i s i o n s a p p e a l e d to t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t . A t h i r d r e a s o n c o m p e l s t h i s C o u r t to d i s m i s s P l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t . P l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s m u s t be d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e he

w a i v e d these c l a i m s t h r o u g h his s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t w i t h DoD.
In the s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t , P l a i n t i f f a g r e e d to " f o r e g o f i l i n g
a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o m p l a i n t , o r i n s t i t u t i n g a n y o t h e r c a u s e of
action before courts or administrative bodies that were raised

o r c o u l d h a v e b e e n r a i s e d i n [his f o r m a l D o D c o m p l a i n t ] . "

Thus, Plaintiff expressly waived his right to file a
discrimination complaint or any other cause of a c t i o n that c o u l d
h a v e b e e n r a i s e d in his M a y 24, 2005 D o D c o m p l a i n t or the

ensuing proceedings, including non-selection for promotion to
the G S - 5 1 1 - 1 3 p o s i t i o n .
Plaintiff asserts that claims arising from his non-referral

and non-selection for the vacant auditor position are not barred

by the settlement agreement because he only received the letters
notifying him of his non-referral on September 20, 2005. This
a r g u m e n t is unfounded. By the date of the s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t -

September 19, 2005--Plaintiff knew that his security clearance
had been suspended and that he was ineligible to apply for

positions requiring a clearance. Since the settlement agreement
waives all claims that could have been raised in the 2005

complaint, the settlement agreement bars Plaintiff from bringing
this action.

For these reasons,

D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s is

granted.

An a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r shall issue.
/s/ Claude M. Hilton

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia N o v e m b e r $? , 2 0 1 0

10