PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 06-1930
and
RALPH ROUSE,
Defendant.
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 07-1098
and
RALPH ROUSE,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:06-cv-00475-JFM)
Argued: September 27, 2007
Decided: February 5, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge,
and Raymond A. JACKSON, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
2 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Duncan wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Jackson joined. Chief Judge Williams wrote a separate
opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part and concurring in the
judgment.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Anthony F. Shelley, MILLER & CHEVALIER, CHAR-
TERED, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Matthew Miles Collette,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Alan I. Horowitz, MILLER & CHE-
VALIER, CHARTERED, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Marleigh D. Dover, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
OPINION
DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:
Long Term Care Partners, LLC ("LTC Partners") challenges the
assumption of jurisdiction by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") over actions brought by
federal employees against the Office of Personnel Management
("OPM") arising from OPM’s participation in an allegedly discrimi-
natory contract with LTC Partners. The district court dismissed LTC
Partners’ claim, holding that the limited exception to the finality
requirement for review of administrative agency action outlined in
Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958), did not apply. We agree and
therefore affirm.
I.
Congress enacted the Long-Term Care Security Act ("LTCSA"), 5
U.S.C. §§ 9001-9009, to provide long-term care insurance to eligible
individuals, including federal employees, their qualified relatives, and
annuitants. OPM effectuated the mandate of the LTCSA by establish-
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 3
ing the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program ("Program"), 5
C.F.R. pt. 875, contracting thereunder with "qualified carriers" for the
provision of long-term care insurance, and regulating certain aspects
of the insurers’ operations. See §§ 9001-9003, 9008. Under the Pro-
gram, OPM and a qualified carrier enter into a "master contract" that
delineates the benefits, premiums and other terms and conditions of
the insurance policies issued by the carrier. § 9003.
The Program does not provide universal coverage. § 9002(e)(3).
Instead, each individual must apply for coverage using a form pre-
scribed by the carrier and approved by OPM. 5 C.F.R. § 875.401(a).
The carrier has discretion, within the limits set forth in the master
contract, to accept or reject applications. 5 U.S.C. § 9003(c); 5 C.F.R.
§ 875.407.1 The carrier’s eligibility determinations are subject to
review "only to the extent and in the manner provided in the applica-
ble master contract." 5 U.S.C. § 9003(c)(2). Notwithstanding this, a
limited right to judicial review of the carrier’s eligibility determina-
tions exists, provided the applicant has exhausted the administrative
remedies set forth in the master contract. 5 U.S.C. § 9007. Unlike the
role of the carrier, OPM’s role in the administration of the Program
is limited. 5 C.F.R. §§ 875.106, .107. OPM does not make insurability
decisions, and the regulations prohibit applicants from appealing car-
riers’ insurability decisions to OPM. 5 C.F.R. § 875.407.
Pursuant to its authority under the LTCSA, OPM entered into a
master contract with LTC Partners, a consortium created by John
Hancock Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company.2 The master contract sets forth LTC Partners’ internal
administrative appeals process as the only avenue for appeal of an
insurability determination. An applicant denied coverage can submit
the denial letter to his or her physician, who in turn can respond in
writing to the specific bases for the denial. Upon receipt of a physi-
cian’s letter, LTC Partners’ underwriting staff reconsiders the original
denial and issues a second decision. An applicant denied coverage at
this stage can obtain an additional de novo review within LTC Partners.3
1
Covered employees are responsible for the entire cost of insurance,
unsubsidized by the government. § 9004(a).
2
LTC Partners is the only qualified carrier under the LTCSA.
3
The Director of Underwriting for LTC Partners described this review
as follows: "Should the original underwriting decision be upheld, the
4 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
Following exhaustion of these administrative remedies, a still-
aggrieved applicant may file suit against the carrier in federal district
court.
In July 2002, Ralph D. Rouse, Jr., a federal employee, submitted
an application for insurance to LTC Partners. The application form,
designed by LTC Partners and approved by OPM, required applicants
to indicate whether they used "medical devices, aids, or treatments,"
and listed wheelchairs as a specific example. J.A. 256. The form
stated that an affirmative response to the "medical devices, aids, or
treatments" question would render the applicant ineligible for cover-
age. Rouse, a paraplegic who used a wheelchair, responded to the
question in the affirmative. Accordingly, LTC Partners denied Rouse
coverage based on his use of a wheelchair, J.A. 263-64, and upheld
the denial on reconsideration, J.A. 268.4 Instead of filing a complaint
against the carrier in federal district court, as was his right under 5
U.S.C. § 9007, Rouse filed a formal EEOC administrative complaint
against OPM as the agency administering the Program. In his com-
plaint, Rouse alleged that OPM’s contractual arrangement with LTC
Partners, under which Rouse was denied long-term care insurance
coverage, constituted unlawful discrimination by the agency.
In proceedings before an EEOC Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ"), OPM argued that Rouse’s complaint should be dismissed
because the EEOC did not have jurisdiction to review LTC Partners’
insurability decision. The ALJ rejected this argument, finding that it
"confuse[d] jurisdiction under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) with eligibility determinations under the LTCSA" and holding
applicant may request a second, and final reconsideration review. A
senior level/supervisory underwriter or a Medical Director at John Han-
cock or MetLife reviews that decision. The individuals reviewing the
second level reconsideration, while knowledgeable of the underwriting
protocols for the [Program], have no involvement with the initial or sub-
sequent denial and act as independent reviewers." J.A. 24-25.
4
Rouse’s claim did not involve a dispute over medical judgments.
Therefore, the second-level review, including review of records by
Rouse’s physician and subsequent reconsideration by LTC Partners’
underwriting staff, was unavailable in Rouse’s case.
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 5
that "the Commission has jurisdiction under the ADA to determine
whether OPM has participated in a contract which makes disability-
based distinctions in the eligibility requirements of its insurance
plan." Rouse v. Director, Office of Personnel Management, Case No.
100-2005-00025X (E.E.O.C. October 27, 2005) (order denying
OPM’s motion to dismiss); J.A. 106-07. Under relevant sections of
the ADA, OPM is prohibited from
participating in a contractual or other arrangement or rela-
tionship that has the effect of subjecting a covered entity’s
qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the dis-
crimination prohibited by this subchapter (such relationship
includes a relationship with an employment or referral
agency, labor union, an organization providing fringe bene-
fits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization
providing training and apprenticeship programs)[.]
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(2). The EEOC had jurisdiction to determine
whether OPM discriminated against Rouse under this section of the
ADA, the ALJ determined, despite the limitations on review of LTC
Partners’ insurability decisions set forth in the LTCSA and the master
contract.5
In two subsequent appeals, the EEOC has reinforced its view of the
limited extent to which it may exercise jurisdiction in cases like
Rouse. See Fornaro v. Blair, E.E.O.C. Doc. 01A53949, 2005 WL
3038227 (November 2, 2005), recons. denied sub nom. Fornaro v.
Springer, E.E.O.C. Doc. 0520060303, 2007 WL 1661122 (May 24,
2007); James v. Springer, E.E.O.C. Doc. 0120054026, 2007 WL
1393631 (May 3, 2007); recons. denied, E.E.O.C. Doc. 0520070615,
2007 WL 2416692 (August 16, 2007). In each of these cases, the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations ("OFO") rejected OPM’s argu-
ment that the aggrieved Program applicant’s complaint was an imper-
missible collateral attack on an unfavorable insurance decision. In
5
The underlying substantive questions—whether long-term care insur-
ance is a fringe benefit; whether denial of insurance coverage concerns
a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and whether the master
contract subjects federal employees to the discrimination prohibited by
the ADA—are not before us.
6 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
doing so, the OFO distinguished between challenges to individual
coverage determinations and the propriety of the overarching contract
as articulated by the statute: "Congress intended that contractual rela-
tionships of a covered employer be scrutinized for whether they dis-
criminate against its employees who are individuals with disabilities
within the meaning of the law." James, 2007 WL 1393631, at *3; see
also Fornaro, 2005 WL 3038227, at *2. The OFO found "no indica-
tion in [the] language or in the legislative history [of the LTCSA] that
Congress intended to authorize OPM to dispense with its non-
discriminatory obligations under civil rights statutes." James, 2007
WL 1393631, at *4; see also Fornaro, 2005 WL 3038227, at *2. The
OFO found that "OPM, in its contractual relationship with [LTC Part-
ners] for the provision of this insurance, is the proper party responsi-
ble for ensuring that its contract adheres to non-discrimination
statutes." James, 2007 WL 1393631, at *4. Finding EEOC jurisdic-
tion appropriate in each case, the OFO remanded the claims for pro-
cessing by the agency.6
On February 23, 2006, LTC Partners filed suit against the United
States in federal district court. The complaint, as later amended,
alleged that the EEOC had asserted jurisdiction over LTC Partners’
insurability decisions in contravention of the LTCSA and its imple-
menting regulations. LTC Partners sought (1) a declaration that the
EEOC was without jurisdiction to review insurability decisions made
under the Program, and (2) a permanent injunction preventing the
EEOC from asserting such jurisdiction.7 The district court dismissed
LTC Partners’ challenge to the EEOC’s assertion of jurisdiction,
holding that the decision to entertain such matters was not "final
6
At the time of oral argument in this case, both Fornaro and James
remained pending before OPM.
7
LTC Partners also moved to enjoin proceedings in Rouse and sought
an order compelling the EEOC to permit LTC Partners to intervene in
those proceedings. The district court ultimately granted LTC Partners’
requested permission to intervene. Rouse subsequently abandoned his
EEOC claim and sought relief against OPM in federal district court, later
adding LTC Partners as a party to that action. Rouse v. Springer, No. 06-
2088 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 8, 2006). LTC Partners has not sought to inter-
vene in the ongoing proceedings in Fornaro or James.
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 7
agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and
did not fit the limited finality exception outlined in Leedom.8
II.
On appeal, the government first contends that LTC Partners lacks
standing to challenge the EEOC’s exercise of jurisdiction over its
contractual partner, OPM. The district court did not reach this issue.
However, standing implicates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction,
and it may therefore be appropriately considered on appeal. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Sucampo Pharm., Inc. v. Astellas Pharma, Inc.,
471 F.3d 544, 548-49 (4th Cir. 2006). To satisfy the standing require-
ment of the case-or-controversy limitation on judicial authority found
in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, the party invoking federal
court jurisdiction must show that (1) it has suffered an injury in fact,
(2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendants’ actions, and (3) it
is likely, and not merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed
by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
560-61 (1992); see also Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper
Recycling Corp., 204 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc). To
meet the first requirement, the party must demonstrate an "injury in
fact" that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, as
opposed to conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
"The standing requirement is designed to guarantee that the plaintiff
has a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of a dispute to render
judicial resolution of it appropriate." Emery v. Roanoke City Sch. Bd.,
432 F.3d 294, 298 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted).
8
At the district court’s behest, LTC Partners then filed a second
amended complaint, reasserting its original challenge to EEOC jurisdic-
tion and adding a new claim seeking declaratory judgments (1) that deni-
als of coverage to wheelchair users under the Program did not violate the
ADA or any other provision of law, and (2) that LTC Partners’ rejection
of Rouse’s application was valid and lawful. The court dismissed the
new claim as it pertained to the United States for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, concluding there was no indication that LTC Partners and
the United States, as contractual partners, maintained adverse interests as
to the claim. The dismissal of the new claim in the second amended com-
plaint has not been appealed.
8 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
LTC Partners claims injury based on the EEOC’s exercise of juris-
diction over its contractual partner, OPM. LTC Partners argues that
this exercise of jurisdiction guts its right to enjoy the limitations on
review imposed by the LTCSA; forces it to expend resources on
administrative litigation whether or not it is a party to the proceed-
ings; and imperils the contract through the threat of an adverse ruling
on the merits against OPM in the pending EEOC actions. The govern-
ment responds by noting that EEOC decisions on the merits in For-
naro and James would operate only against OPM, arguing that any
projected downstream effects of such rulings on LTC Partners are too
conjectural or hypothetical to confer Article III standing.9
Notwithstanding the government’s invocation of standing con-
cerns, we decline, as did the district court, to decide this case on
standing grounds. This court previously determined that analysis of
whether a case presents "final agency action" should precede a stand-
ing inquiry. Flue-Cured Tobacco Coop. Stabilization Corp. v. EPA,
313 F.3d 852, 857 (4th Cir. 2002). We reasoned that the doctrine of
constitutional avoidance requires us to eschew determinations of Arti-
cle III standing, a constitutional question, in cases in which a statutory
jurisdictional inquiry could dictate the result. Id. (citing Ashwander v.
Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concur-
9
It is also open to question whether LTC Partners could satisfy the
redressibility requirement of Article III standing. Here, LTC Partners
sought a declaration from the district court that "the EEOC’[s] assertion
of jurisdiction to review insurability decisions made by LTC Partners is
void as in excess of EEOC’s statutory jurisdiction and authority," and a
related injunction on the exercise of such jurisdiction. J.A. 94. But the
EEOC explicitly acknowledged in Fornaro and James its lack of author-
ity to review insurability decisions. See Fornaro, 2005 WL 3038227, at
*2 ("This is not to say that the Commission may overturn a decision
strictly concerning an individual’s ‘insurability.’ Such decisions are
within the discretion of the insurer and fall within the protective provi-
sions of the ADA for insurance providers set aside by Congress.").
Therefore, unless the EEOC cannot avoid exercising jurisdiction over
LTC Partners’ insurability decisions when it examines OPM’s participa-
tion in the master contract, a favorable decision here would have no
effect on the EEOC’s authority to hear cases like Fornaro and James.
We analyze this issue in connection with LTC Partners’ Leedom argu-
ment, infra Part III.A.
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 9
ring) ("It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitu-
tional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.")
(internal quotations omitted)).
The continued validity of this portion of the decision in Flue-Cured
Tobacco has been called into question somewhat by Arbaugh v. Y &
H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006). In Arbaugh, the Supreme Court con-
sidered the provision of Title VII limiting its applicability to busi-
nesses over a certain size. Id. at 504-05 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)
(defining "employer" to include only those entities having "fifteen or
more employees")). The district court had determined, after trial, and
on the employer’s motion, that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
because the defendant employed fewer than fifteen employees, and
consequently dismissed the case. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The
Supreme Court reversed, noting that the statutory provision at issue
did not speak in jurisdictional terms, and concluding that the factual
issue of whether the defendant had fifteen or more employees was not
a jurisdictional limitation but an element of the claim for relief. Id. at
513-16. The Court explained, "[W]hen Congress does not rank a stat-
utory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the
restriction as nonjurisdictional in character." Id. at 516. Cf. Partington
v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 443 F.3d 334, 338-39 (4th Cir.
2006) (applying Arbaugh and finding that the district court properly
exercised jurisdiction in a case involving alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933).
Relying on Arbaugh, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia has held that the requirement of final agency action under
section 10(c) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 704, is not jurisdictional. Tru-
deau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 183-84 & nn. 6-7 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see
also Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson, 503 F.3d 18, 33 (1st
Cir. 2007) (reaffirming the court’s pre-Arbaugh determination that the
APA’s finality requirement is not jurisdictional). We assume without
deciding that the Arbaugh rule applies equally to statutory "final
agency action" under the APA and non-statutory inquiries under Lee-
dom, rendering both nonjurisdictional.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court recently clarified, relying on Steel
Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 100-101, n.3
(1998), and Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 585
10 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
(1999), that "a federal court has leeway to choose among threshold
grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits." Sinochem Int’l
Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 127 S. Ct. 1184, 1191 (2007)
(internal quotations omitted). "[J]urisdiction is vital only if the court
proposes to issue a judgment on the merits." Id. at 1191-92 (alteration
in original) (internal quotations omitted). In Sinochem, the Court
determined that a federal court could properly dismiss a case under
the forum non conveniens doctrine without first resolving the thresh-
old jurisdictional issues. The Court reasoned that a forum non conve-
niens dismissal might be appropriate, notwithstanding the presence of
unresolved jurisdictional issues, because such a dismissal "den[ies]
audience to a case on the merits" and "is a determination that the mer-
its should be adjudicated elsewhere." Id. at 1192 (alteration in origi-
nal) (internal quotations omitted). The Court listed by way of example
other legal issues that could also be addressed without first deciding
whether a case presented an Article III case or controversy. Id. at
1191 (pointing to abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971), and dismissal of certain suits against the government under
Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1876)).
Thus, under Sinochem, it is of no moment whether Arbaugh ren-
ders our Leedom inquiry nonjurisdictional. Our Leedom analysis
requires no more than "a brush with factual and legal issues of the
underlying dispute" and "does not entail any assumption by the court
of substantive law-declaring power." Sinochem, 127 S. Ct. at 1192-93
(internal quotations omitted). Our consideration of Leedom, infra,
weighs heavily in favor of dismissal, whereas the standing issue here
would be difficult to resolve. Under these circumstances, Sinochem
counsels us to "take[ ] the less burdensome course," 127 S. Ct. at
1194, and decide the case on Leedom grounds without first surmount-
ing the jurisdictional hurdle of standing. See Ashwander, 297 U.S. at
347 (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("It is not the habit of the court to
decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary
to a decision of the case.") (internal quotations omitted). We therefore
decide this case on the basis of our analysis of LTC Partners’ Leedom
argument, to which we now turn.
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 11
III.
Judicial review under the APA is limited to "final agency action for
which there is no other adequate remedy in a court." 5 U.S.C. § 704.10
In Leedom, the Supreme Court recognized a nonstatutory exception
to the § 704 finality requirement in cases in which agencies act out-
side the scope of their delegated powers and contrary to "clear and
mandatory" statutory prohibitions. 358 U.S. at 188-90. The finality
exception in Leedom is limited; it is properly invoked only where the
absence of federal court jurisdiction over an agency action "would
wholly deprive" the aggrieved party "of a meaningful and adequate
means of vindicating its statutory rights." Bd. of Governors, Fed.
Reserve Sys. v. MCorp Fin., Inc., 502 U.S. 32, 43 (1991).
LTC Partners claims that this case fits both criteria for exercise of
Leedom jurisdiction and that the district court erred by holding other-
wise. First, LTC Partners argues that the EEOC, in exercising juris-
diction in Rouse, Fornaro, and James, acted contrary to the LTCSA’s
clear and mandatory prohibition of review of carriers’ eligibility
determinations except "to the extent and in the manner provided in the
applicable master contract." 5 U.S.C. § 9003(c)(2). LTC Partners
asserts that the second Leedom requirement is also met in this case
because it has no meaningful and adequate means, apart from this liti-
gation, of vindicating its perceived right under § 9003 and the master
contract not to be forced to defend its insurability decisions before the
EEOC. See MCorp, 502 U.S. at 43. We review de novo the district
court’s dismissal of this claim. Suter v. United States, 441 F.3d 306,
310 (4th Cir. 2006).
A.
We begin by examining LTC Partners’ argument that the EEOC
acted contrary to a clear and mandatory requirement in the LTCSA.
In Leedom, the Supreme Court construed a statute dealing with the
certification of collective bargaining units by the National Labor
Relations Board ("NLRB"). The statute provided that the NLRB
"shall not . . . decide that any unit is appropriate for [collective bar-
10
Though not relevant here, the APA also provides that a court may
review agency action made reviewable by statute. § 704.
12 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
gaining] purposes if such unit includes both professional employees
and employees who are not professional employees unless a majority
of such professional employees vote for inclusion in such unit." Lee-
dom, 358 U.S. at 184-85 (citing National Labor Relations Act
§ 9(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 159(b)(1)). In spite of this prohibition, the
NLRB issued an order certifying a unit for collective bargaining pur-
poses that included both professional and non-professional employ-
ees, without obtaining the professional employees’ consent. Id. at
186. The Court held that the Board had acted "in excess of its dele-
gated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the Act" that
was "clear and mandatory," stating that such action was "[p]lainly . . .
an attempted exercise of power that had been specifically withheld."
Id. at 188-89. Under those circumstances, the Court held, the district
court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Id. at 190-91 ("This Court
cannot lightly infer that Congress does not intend judicial protection
of rights it confers against agency action taken in excess of delegated
powers.").
The Supreme Court has since reinforced the "narrow limits" of
Leedom. See Boire v. Greyhound Corp., 376 U.S. 473, 481 (1964).
We have therefore construed the exception accordingly, finding Lee-
dom jurisdiction appropriate only where there is a "strong and clear
demonstration that a clear, specific and mandatory [statutory provi-
sion] has been violated." Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock
Co. v. NLRB, 633 F.2d 1079, 1081 (4th Cir. 1980) (internal quotations
omitted). When a party invokes Leedom as the basis for this court’s
jurisdiction, we conduct a "cursory review of the merits" to determine
if the agency acted "clearly beyond the boundaries of its authority."
Champion Int’l Corp. v. EPA, 850 F.2d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 1988). If
the agency offered a "plausible" interpretation of the relevant statute,
we will find that it did not "violate a clear statutory mandate," Han-
auer v. Reich, 82 F.3d 1304, 1311 (4th Cir. 1996), and Leedom juris-
diction will not lie. See also Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n AFL-
CIO v. Fed. Serv. Impasses Panel, 437 F.3d 1256, 1264 (D.C. Cir.
2006) (holding, where both parties on appeal "raised compelling argu-
ments regarding the proper interpretation of the disputed statutory
provisions," that it was precisely this fact that compelled the court to
find that there had been no violation of a clear and specific statutory
directive).
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 13
In this case, the statute provides, "A carrier’s determination as to
whether or not a particular individual is eligible to obtain long-term
care insurance coverage under this chapter shall be subject to review
only to the extent and in the manner provided in the applicable master
contract." 5 U.S.C. § 9003(c)(2). LTC Partners argues that in exercis-
ing jurisdiction over cases brought by federal employees aggrieved by
LTC Partners’ eligibility determinations, the EEOC violated the clear,
specific, and mandatory prohibition of 5 U.S.C. § 9003. See id. ("A
carrier’s [eligibility] determination[s] . . . shall be subject to review
only [as] provided in the applicable master contract.") (emphasis
added). There is no serious dispute about the mandatory nature of this
provision or that it is specific and clear as it pertains to carriers’ eligi-
bility determinations. The EEOC has repeatedly drawn a line, how-
ever, between review of carriers’ eligibility determinations and
scrutiny of OPM’s participation in a contractual relationship that has
the alleged effect of discriminating against federal employees. The
question before us is whether the distinction drawn by the agency is
a reasonable one. In deciding it, we need not reach the ultimate merits
of the EEOC’s position. Rather, our Leedom inquiry is aimed at the
more basic question of whether there is a "strong and clear demon-
stration" of a violation of a clear, specific and mandatory statutory
provision, or whether the agency’s view, while perhaps not compel-
ling beyond cavil, is nevertheless "plausible." Newport News, 633
F.2d at 1081 (internal quotations omitted).
Rouse, Fornaro, and James reflect the EEOC’s determination that
although § 9003 clearly and specifically prohibits review of LTC
Partners’ eligibility determinations, it does nothing to inhibit EEOC
review of OPM’s participation in allegedly discriminatory contractual
relationships. The EEOC OFO has espoused the view that the latter
inquiry is governed by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(2), and is
unaffected by the specific prohibition in the LTCSA, 5 U.S.C.
§ 9003(c)(2). To hold otherwise, the OFO found, "would be to allow
[OPM] to potentially enter into any contract term which violates fed-
eral law or discriminates against whole groups of individuals on the
basis of their protected class." Fornaro, 2005 WL 3038227, at *2.
LTC Partners argues in response that review of its eligibility deci-
sions and scrutiny of the master-contract terms require the same ulti-
mate inquiry: whether a claimant was subjected to discrimination
14 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
based on disability when he was denied coverage under the Program.
According to LTC Partners, this broad inquiry and all of its compo-
nent parts are foreclosed to anyone but LTC Partners under the
LTCSA, 5 U.S.C. § 9003(c)(2). By asserting jurisdiction to review
OPM’s participation in the master contract, LTC Partners concludes,
the EEOC is engaging in the prohibited act of reviewing its insurabil-
ity determinations.
This argument is severely undercut by provisions of the ADA pro-
tecting insurers’ risk-based eligibility judgments. Such judgments are
insulated from scrutiny so long as they are not "used as a subterfuge
to evade the purposes of [the ADA]." 42 U.S.C. § 12201(c). The OFO
has recognized that these statutory provisions render the EEOC pow-
erless to overturn insurers’ decisions "strictly concerning an individu-
al’s ‘insurability.’" Fornaro, 2005 WL 3038227, at *2. However, a
separate ADA provision governs agency discrimination via participa-
tion in suspect contractual relationships. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(2).
Because the line drawn by the OFO parallels and arises in part from
a delineation in the United States Code, it would be difficult to con-
clude that the distinction between review of insurability decisions and
scrutiny of an agency’s contractual relationships is simply the way-
ward creation of a self-aggrandizing administrative agency.
The court below found merit in the EEOC’s distinction between
review of an individual eligibility determination and what the court
characterized as the "macro issue" in the case—review of OPM’s par-
ticipation in an allegedly discriminatory contractual relationship. As
a result, the court concluded that the record before it contained no
clear indication that the EEOC had acted beyond its jurisdiction.
We agree with the conclusion urged by the government and
reached by the district court. The distinction drawn in the EEOC cases
may not be compelled, but it is certainly a "plausible" one, reached
upon sound analysis after thorough inquiry, and grounded in the lan-
guage of the ADA. See Hanauer, 82 F.3d at 1311. The provision
relied on by LTC Partners clearly prohibits the EEOC’s direct review
of LTC Partners’ eligibility determination in an individual case. See
5 U.S.C. § 9003(c)(2). Indeed, the EEOC recognized as much in
Rouse, Fornaro, and James. But § 9003(c)(2), by its terms, does not
directly prohibit review of OPM’s actions under the Program or of
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 15
any action broader in scope than a determination as to a particular
individual’s eligibility for coverage under the LTCSA. Faced with the
challenge to its jurisdiction leveled by OPM in Rouse, Fornaro, and
James, the EEOC offered a reasoned explanation of its assertion of
jurisdiction, highlighting its responsibility to police OPM’s actions
under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which it found undisrupted by the
LTCSA, 5 U.S.C. § 9003(c)(2), which in turn concerns only eligibil-
ity determinations. Under these circumstances, we find that the record
does not contain a "strong and clear demonstration" of a violation of
a clear, specific and mandatory statutory provision. See Newport
News, 633 F.2d at 1081.
B.
Even if we were to reach a contrary conclusion, LTC Partners
could not show that the EEOC’s exercise of jurisdiction in Rouse,
Fornaro, and James "wholly deprive[d] [LTC Partners] of a meaning-
ful and adequate means of vindicating its statutory rights," MCorp,
502 U.S. at 43. That is, LTC Partners could not satisfy the second
condition for Leedom jurisdiction to lie.
LTC Partners claims the EEOC’s assertion of jurisdiction in pro-
ceedings like Fornaro and James threatens to sacrifice or obliterate
its statutory right to enjoy limitations on review of its insurability
determinations under the LTCSA. See Leedom, 358 U.S. at 190. LTC
Partners argues that the EEOC’s action, if left unchecked, would
divest LTC Partners of its right under the LTCSA to have its insur-
ability decisions not made the subject of any EEOC proceeding,
whether brought against LTC Partners or its contractual partner,
OPM. In presenting this argument, LTC Partners analogizes its right
to the right of a sovereign to immunity from suit. See R.I. Dep’t of
Envtl. Mgmt. v. United States, 304 F.3d 31, 42 (1st Cir. 2002) (finding
that an adverse immunity determination would "wholly deprive the
[state] of a meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its . . .
rights.") (omission in original). "Since the state’s sovereign rights
encompass more than a mere defense from liability—they include an
immunity from being haled before a tribunal by private parties—those
rights would be lost without an early and authoritative ruling." Id. at
43 (citing P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506
U.S. 139, 145 (1993)).
16 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
LTC Partners’ argument is both overbroad and fraught with com-
plications. First, as discussed at length supra, the so-called "immu-
nity" granted to "[a] carrier’s determination as to whether or not a
particular individual is eligible to obtain long-term care insurance
coverage," § 9003(c)(2), may or may not also attach to the EEOC’s
review of OPM’s participation in a contractual arrangement that has
the alleged effect of subjecting federal employees to discrimination.
Moreover, LTC Partners’ "immunity" argument suffers from the obvi-
ous deficiency that LTC Partners is a private party and not a sover-
eign entity. This case presents neither the constitutional scope
inherent in the sovereign immunity doctrine nor its rationale of shield-
ing the sovereign from "the indignity of [being] subject[ed] . . . to the
coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private par-
ties," In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 505 (1887). LTC Partners’ analogy
also fails logically in likening the insulation of an entity (the sover-
eign) from suit to the insulation of a category of decisions (eligibility
determinations) from review. For these reasons, LTC Partners’ claim
also fails to satisfy the second requirement for Leedom jurisdiction.11
IV.
LTC Partners argues, in the alternative, that the EEOC’s exercise
of jurisdiction in Rouse, Fornaro, and James is final agency action
under the APA. However, "[q]uestions not raised and properly pre-
served in the trial forum will not be noticed on appeal, in the absence
11
LTC Partners also analogizes to the qualified immunity doctrine.
This analogy fails for similar reasons. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.
511, 525 (1985) (describing public service-focused rationale for qualified
immunity doctrine). Moreover, we note that LTC Partners is actively
engaged in defense of the master contract in federal district court. Rouse
v. Springer, No. 06-2088 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 8, 2006). We recognize that
Rouse does not provide an opportunity for LTC Partners to contest the
EEOC’s assertion of jurisdiction, and that it therefore will not allow LTC
Partners to meaningfully assert its purported right to enjoy limitations on
review of its eligibility determinations under the LTCSA. However, LTC
Partners’ participation in Rouse, along with the past granting of its
request to intervene in the Rouse EEOC proceeding, casts doubt upon
any suggestion that the proceedings in Fornaro and James deprive LTC
Partners of an adequate forum in which to defend its substantive interests
under the master contract.
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 17
of exceptional circumstances." United States v. One 1971 Mercedes
Benz, 542 F.2d 912, 915 (4th Cir. 1976). LTC Partners concedes that
it based its case before the district court solely on Leedom but argues
that this narrowness of focus should not limit it on appeal, citing the
"change in the complexion of the case" over the course of time. Reply
Br. at 18. Specifically, LTC Partners draws our attention to the fact
that after Rouse abandoned his EEOC claim, this case no longer con-
cerned an attempt to enjoin the Rouse proceedings but instead shifted
to a singular focus on enjoining the EEOC’s exercise of jurisdiction
over LTC Partners’ insurability decisions in general.12
All of the ingredients for LTC Partners’ generalized claim—that
the EEOC acted outside its jurisdiction in hearing Rouse, Fornaro,
and James—were presented in LTC Partners’ first amended com-
plaint. J.A. 91 ("EEOC’s action in asserting jurisdiction to review
LTC Partners’ insurability decisions and the related proceedings are
outside its authority, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and
otherwise . . . in violation of the [APA][.]"). However, LTC Partners
disavowed this claim in the proceedings below, labeling it a "straw-
man argument" offered by the government, Pl.’s Opp. Mot. Dismiss
at 9, calling discussion of it "beside the point," id., and acquiescing
in the court’s suggestion at the hearing that both parties agreed they
were not dealing with a final agency decision, J.A. 182. That LTC
Partners chose not to present the APA argument to the district court,
instead disclaiming the argument and training the court’s sights solely
on Leedom, was a matter of strategy. A mid-litigation change in strat-
egy cannot alone amount to an exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stance that might nullify waiver and justify review.13
12
This question is kept alive through the ongoing proceedings in For-
naro and James.
13
In any event, "final agency action" here would necessarily entail the
agency’s issuance of a definitive ruling that had some immediate "legal
force or practical effect" on LTC Partners other than "the disruptions that
accompany any major litigation." FTC v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S.
232, 243 (1980); see also Eastman Kodak Co. v. Mossinghoff, 704 F.2d
1319, 1322 (4th Cir. 1983); Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. v. Andrus, 564 F.2d
1119, 1123 (4th Cir. 1977). Both Fort Sumter Tours and Athlone Indus.,
Inc. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 707 F.2d 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1983),
the primary cases relied upon by LTC Partners, involved agency deci-
18 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s holding
that the Leedom exception to the finality requirement for review of
agency action did not apply in this case. The district court’s grant of
the government’s motion to dismiss is therefore
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part
and concurring in the judgment:
I join in full in Parts I, III.B, and IV of the majority opinion and,
accordingly, I concur in the result reached in Part V, affirming the
dismissal of the complaint by Long Term Care Partners, LLC ("LTC
Partners"). I write separately, however, because I believe that, in light
of Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), "final agency
action" under § 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") is
not a prerequisite for us to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, I do not believe we may proceed to consider whether
LTC Partners has met its burden under Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184
(1958), without first considering whether LTC Partners possesses
standing to bring this action.
Instead, I would first consider that question and answer it in the
affirmative. Furthermore, I believe that LTC Partners has met its bur-
den of proving that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") is violating a clear statutory mandate, in satisfaction of
sions that indisputably had direct and immediate legal force and practical
effect on the plaintiffs. Here, as already noted, the immediate impact of
the EEOC’s jurisdictional decision on LTC Partners is, at best, tenuous.
It is difficult to see how EEOC’s assertion of jurisdiction over OPM,
even with the alleged obliteration of LTC Partners’ statutory right, has
any tangible, immediate effect on LTC Partners, aside from the disrup-
tions attending whatever participation is required of it in the EEOC pro-
ceedings. The "chilling effect" of the EEOC’s action on LTC Partners’
administration of the Program, see Appellant’s Br. at 52; Reply Br. at 21,
would be too amorphous to carry much weight in an APA analysis.
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 19
Leedom’s first prong. I concur in the judgment of the court, however,
because I agree with the conclusion, reached in Part III.B, that LTC
Partners cannot show our failure to act in this case "would wholly
deprive" it "of a meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its
statutory rights." Bd. of Governors, Fed. Reserve Sys. v. MCorp. Fin.,
Inc., 502 U.S. 32, 43 (1991).
I.
A.
In Flue-Cured Tobacco Coop. Stabilization Corp. v. E.P.A., 313
F.3d 852 (4th Cir. 2002), we held that, absent final agency action
under § 704, we lacked subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to
an agency’s decision making. Id. at 857. Importantly, we also
answered that question before addressing what we perceived to be a
thorny standing question in that case. Id. Following this approach, the
majority declines to answer whether LTC Partners has standing and
instead rests its decision on the ground that the EEOC’s actions do not
represent "final agency action," and that LTC Partners failed to prove
its entitlement to the Leedom exception to the APA’s finality require-
ment.
Flue-Cured Tobacco entered us into a circuit-split at the time it
was decided, see Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Consumer Prod.
Safety Comm’n, 324 F.3d 726, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (holding that
where "judicial review is sought under the APA rather than a particu-
lar statute prescribing judicial review, the requirement of final agency
action is not jurisdictional"); R.I. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. United
States, 304 F.3d 31, 40 (1st Cir. 2002) ("[T]he issue of whether the
APA provides for judicial review of the nonfinal ruling is not one
that, precisely speaking, implicates the subject-matter jurisdiction of
the court."), and, in light of recent Supreme Court precedent, our side
of that circuit-split is no longer defensible. In Arbaugh, the Court cre-
ated a bright-line rule for analyzing whether a statutory provision
implicates our subject matter jurisdiction:
If the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on
a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional, then courts
and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to
20 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
wrestle with the issue. . . . But when Congress does not rank
a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts
should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character.
Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515-16 (internal citation omitted).
The Court then applied its "readily administrable bright line" to
find that the numerosity requirements in Title VII were not jurisdic-
tional but "an element of a plaintiff’s claim for relief." Id. at 516.
In the wake of Arbaugh, at least two circuits have considered
whether § 704 of the APA implicates the subject matter jurisdiction
of the federal courts and both concluded, with little hesitation, that
§ 704 falls on the non-jurisdictional side of Arbaugh’s bright-line
rule. See Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178, 183-84 &
nn. 6-7 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (same); see also Nulankeyutmonen
Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson, 503 F.3d 18, 33 (1st Cir. 2007) (reaffirming
the court’s pre-Arbaugh determination that the APA’s finality require-
ment is not jurisdictional). It might be possible to argue that, because
Arbaugh did not specifically address § 704 of the APA, the Court did
not overrule Flue-Cured Tobacco. As the Sixth Circuit has explained,
however, Arbaugh "effectively overruled" cases, like Flue-Cured
Tobacco, that failed to apply a bright-line clear statement rule for
jurisdiction. Thomas v. Miller, 489 F.3d 293, 298 (6th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, because § 704 of the APA does not contain a clear
statement implicating our subject matter jurisdiction, the "final
agency action" requirement contained therein, like the numerosity
requirement in Title VII, is "nonjurisdictional in character." Arbaugh,
546 U.S. at 516.
B.
Having concluded that § 704’s "final agency action" requirement
does not impact our subject matter jurisdiction, we must next decide
whether this conclusion nonetheless permits us to consider the pres-
ence of final agency action before considering LTC Partners’ stand-
ing. The question of LTC Partners’ standing does impact our subject
matter jurisdiction, for standing is "an integral component of the case
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 21
or controversy requirement." Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312, 316 (4th
Cir. 2006).
The majority, relying on the Supreme Court’s even more recent
decision in Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 127
S. Ct. 1184 (2007), concludes that the standing inquiry need not pre-
cede consideration of the APA’s finality requirement. In Sinochem,
the Court held that a federal court may properly address forum non
conveniens before jurisdictional inquiries when those inquiries are
difficult and "forum non conveniens considerations weigh heavily in
favor of dismissal." Id. at 1194. Such a holding was permissible only
because the Court first found that "[a] forum non conveniens dis-
missal ‘den[ies] audience to a case on the merits,’" and "is a determi-
nation that the merits should be adjudicated elsewhere." Id. at 1192
(emphasis added) (quoting Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526
U.S. 574, 585 (1999)). Because, however, "final agency action" under
§ 704 of the APA should not be considered jurisdictional after
Arbaugh, I believe it is better categorized as "an element of a plain-
tiff’s claim for relief," Arbaugh, 545 U.S. at 516, and, as such, a
merits-based ground for dismissal.*
By advancing to the inquiry into final agency action under the APA
in this case without first addressing LTC Partners’ standing, the
majority violates the principle announced in Steel Co. v. Citizens for
a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998). Steel Co. clarified that a
federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without
first determining that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in
suit (subject matter jurisdiction) and the parties (personal jurisdic-
tion). See id., at 93-102. "‘Without jurisdiction the court cannot pro-
ceed at all in any cause,’" id. at 94 (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7
Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1869)), and it may not assume jurisdic-
tion for the purpose of deciding the merits of the case," id. at 94.
Because standing does implicate our subject matter jurisdiction,
advancing to the non-jurisdictional ground of § 704 of the APA prior
*And, as part of the claim for relief, failure to prove or plead final
agency action would result in failure to file a claim upon which relief
may be granted. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dismissal
based upon that ground must be considered dismissal on the merits for
purposes of res judicata. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
22 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
to deciding the question of LTC Partners’ standing represents the very
"hypothetical jurisdiction" Steel Co. condemns and, accordingly, I
must dissent from Part II of the majority opinion.
II.
A.
Although the district court declined to address LTC Partners’
standing below, the United States renews this argument on appeal
and, because "[i]t is well settled that under Article III of the United
States Constitution, a plaintiff must establish that a ‘case or contro-
versy’ exists," Smith v. Frye, 488 F.3d 263, 272 (4th Cir. 2007), and
"[t]he doctrine of standing is an integral component of the case or
controversy requirement," Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d at 316, we have
a duty to probe LTC Partners’ standing to appear before the court.
Indeed, LTC Partners "cannot rest [its] claim to relief on the legal
rights or interests of third parties." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499
(1975).
Standing has three components:
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" - an
invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete
and particularized, and (b) "actual or imminent, not ‘conjec-
tural’ or ‘hypothetical.’" Second, there must be a causal con-
nection between the injury and the conduct complained of
- the injury has to be "fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged
action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the inde-
pendent action of some third party not before the court."
Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "specula-
tive," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable deci-
sion."
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
LTC Partners, as the party asserting federal jurisdiction, has the
burden of establishing these requirements. Id. at 561.
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 23
Some cases, such as this one, illustrate that the distinction between
the inquiry into a litigant’s Article III standing to bring a claim and
the inquiry into the ultimate merits of the plaintiff’s claim is often a
fine one. See, e.g., Town of Norwood v. F.E.R.C., 202 F.3d 392, 406
(1st Cir. 2000) (noting that, on the facts presented, "the issue of stand-
ing and ‘the merits’ substantially overlap[ped]"); William A. Fletcher,
"The Structure of Standing," 98 Yale L.J. 221, 237 (1988) (arguing
that "standing determinations are actually determinations on the mer-
its"). In such cases, the inquiry into whether a litigant has alleged
some injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the defendant and likely
to be redressed by a favorable decision is so close to the merits that
it is tempting to put aside the differences between the two inquiries
and jump straight to addressing the merits of the litigant’s claim. That
the distinction between standing and the merits is sometimes shadowy
does not mean that the distinction is artificial, however, for, as the
Supreme Court has noted, even if standing "often turns on the nature
and source of the claim asserted," it "in no way depends on the merits
of the plaintiff’s contention that particular conduct is illegal." Warth,
422 U.S. at 500.
Moreover, the Court has cautioned that inquiry into the merits can-
not precede inquiry into the Article III standing question without run-
ning the risk of rendering the merits inquiry nothing more than an
advisory opinion; this illustrates the chronological differences
between the two inquiries. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94. At its core, "the
question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court
decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues," Warth, 422
U.S. at 498, which is always a distinct inquiry from the question of
how a litigant’s claim should be decided. Inasmuch as federal courts
cannot hear cases that do not comport with Article III of the Constitu-
tion, they also cannot deny a litigant who meets Article III’s standing
requirements access to a federal forum simply because it appears that
he or she cannot win in the end. Article III limits federal court juris-
diction to "cases or controversies," U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, not "cases
or controversies that will be decided in the plaintiff’s favor," and
whether a litigant has a sufficient personal stake in a suit is a different
question than whether that litigant has stated a cause of action.
B.
The current case remains at the pleading stage, with the district
court having granted the United States’ motion to dismiss. The stage
24 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
of litigation is significant because, given that the elements of standing
"are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part
of the plaintiff’s case, each element must be supported in the same
way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of
proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the
successive stages of the litigation." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. Of course,
at the pleading stage, "general factual allegations of injury resulting
from the defendant’s conduct may suffice," because courts "presume
that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary
to support the claim." Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted). By contrast, if the case had advanced to the summary judg-
ment stage, such "allegations" would no longer suffice and LTC Part-
ners would be required, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e),
to "set out" by affidavit or other evidence "specific facts" to support
its standing to pursue this action.
Pursuant to this framework, I would conclude that LTC Partners
possesses standing to pursue this action. In its original complaint,
LTC Partners alleged that it is being injured by the EEOC’s exercise
of jurisdiction over its "insurability decisions" and that this exercise
is "outside [the EEOC’s] authority, arbitrary, capricious, . . . and oth-
erwise not in accordance with law." (J.A. at 91.) Such an allegation,
at this stage of the litigation, is sufficient to show injury in fact. The
Court has found that, "[w]hen the suit is one challenging the legality
of government action or inaction, the nature and extent of facts that
must be [alleged] . . . in order to establish standing depends consider-
ably upon whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or
forgone action) at issue." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. If, like here, the
pleading contains an allegation that the plaintiff is the object of the
action, "there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction
has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the
action will redress it." Id. at 561-62.
Moreover, under Warth, an injury in fact can "exist solely by virtue
of statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates stand-
ing." 422 U.S. at 500. In a similar vein, we have recognized that a
party can sue for violation of "a ‘procedural right,’ e.g., the right to
have the Executive observe procedures mandated by law." Hodges v.
Abraham, 300 F.3d 432, 444 (4th Cir. 2002). The existence of Lee-
dom itself, permitting "federal district courts [to exercise] subject
LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES 25
matter jurisdiction to invalidate [agency] actions that clearly fall out-
side the [agency’s] jurisdiction," counsel in favor of finding that LTC
is suffering a cognizable injury. S.C. State Ports Auth. v. N.L.R.B.,
914 F.2d 49, 51 (4th Cir. 1990). Finally, the standard to show an
injury in fact is admittedly low at this stage of litigation; "the claimed
injury need not be large, an identifiable trifle will suffice." Friends of
the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 204 F.3d 149, 156
(4th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The causation and redressability requirements for standing are also
met here. Neither party disputes that the EEOC is causing this alleged
injury. And LTC Partners’ requested relief is likely to redress the
alleged injury; LTC Partners requested a declaration that the EEOC’s
"assertion of jurisdiction to review insurability decisions . . . is void"
and a declaration that "the EEOC is without jurisdiction to review
insurability decisions made pursuant to the [Federal Long Term Care
Insurance Program]." (J.A. at 94.) The majority suggests that this
requested relief may not redress LTC Partners’ injury because the
EEOC claims (and the majority agrees) that the EEOC is actually not
reviewing individual insurability determinations, but only the Master
Contract entered by the Office of Personal Management ("OPM").
This suggestion, however, overlooks the fact that LTC Partners’
standing "in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff’s conten-
tion that particular conduct is illegal." Warth, 422 U.S. at 500. LTC
Partners’ complaint alleges that the EEOC, by exercising jurisdiction
over the claims filed by Ralph D. Rouse, Jr. and others, is in fact
reviewing its insurability decisions; the majority’s conclusion that
such an exercise of jurisdiction does not actually affect LTC Partners’
individual insurability decisions is a conclusion that LTC Partners has
failed to state a claim, not that it lacks standing to bring such a claim.
In sum, given that this case remains at the pleading stage, I would
find that LTC Partners has met its burden of providing that it has
standing to pursue its claim that the EEOC is exercising jurisdiction
over its insurability decisions in a manner contrary to law.
III.
Having concluded that LTC Partners has standing to maintain this
action, I next turn to the question of final agency action and the Lee-
26 LONG TERM CARE PARTNERS v. UNITED STATES
dom exception. On this issue, I disagree with the majority that LTC
Partners has failed in its burden to prove it can satisfy Leedom’s first
prong. Instead, because the plain language of the Long Term Care
Security Act, ("LTCSA"), 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 9001-9009 (West 2007),
provides that a "carrier’s determination as to whether or not a particu-
lar individual is eligible to obtain long-term care insurance coverage
under this chapter shall be subject to review only to the extent and in
the manner provided in the applicable master contract," 5 U.S.C.A.
§ 9003(c)(2), and the master contract between LTC Partners and
OPM does not provide for review by the EEOC, I would find that the
EEOC is violating a clear statutory mandate. I agree in full, however,
with the majority’s conclusion, in Part III.B, that LTC Partners cannot
satisfy Leedom’s second prong, because LTC Partners cannot show
our failure to act "would wholly deprive" it "of a meaningful and ade-
quate means of vindicating its statutory rights." MCorp. Fin., 502
U.S. at 43. In addition, I agree with the conclusion in Part IV that
LTC Partners has waived any argument regarding "final agency
action," and that, even if a finding of waiver were inappropriate, no
final agency action occurred. This agreement permits me to concur in
the result reached in Part V, dismissing LTC Partners’ complaint.