FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 22, 2008
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN SYDNES and TOM
LaBRECQUE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
No. 07-1288
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
(D.C. No. 05-cv-00642-REB-MJW)
Timothy M. Kratz, Pendleton, Friedberg, Wilson, & Hennessey, P.C., Denver,
Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Paul Farley, Assistant United States Attorney (Troy A. Eid, United States
Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BRISCOE and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges, and PARKER, * District
Judge.
GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.
*
Honorable James A. Parker, United States District Court Judge for the
District of New Mexico, sitting by designation.
Titan Corporation fired Brian Sydnes and Tom LaBrecque, civilian
contractors employed by Titan to work as video-teleconferencing engineers at,
and under the supervision of, the United States Northern Command. Claiming
they had been wrongfully terminated in retaliation for reporting security breaches
to Northern Command, Mr. Sydnes and Mr. LaBrecque brought a variety of tort
claims against the United States and Titan. While Titan eventually settled, the
district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, holding
that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Torts Claims Act left it
without authority to hear plaintiffs’ claims. Because we agree that employment
decisions such as the one at issue here are not matters for which the United States
has waived sovereign immunity, we affirm.
I
A
Viewing, as we must, the evidence in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs as the parties responding to a summary judgment motion, the facts
before us are these. Titan Corporation had a contract to provide certain technical
support services to the United States Northern Command (“NORTHCOM”), and
hired Mr. Sydnes and Mr. LaBrecque to participate in the project. The pair were
assigned to work at the Joint Communications Support Center (“JSCS”) at
NORTHCOM. Although employees of Titan, Mr. Sydnes and Mr. LaBrecque
-2-
worked in a building occupied and operated by NORTHCOM, and received their
daily instructions from Air Force personnel at JSCS.
On March 14 and 28, 2004, Mr. Sydnes observed Sergeant Deborah Helle
of the United States Air Force provide an operational cryptograph key to John
Moody, a civilian who was not authorized to be in possession of such classified
material. On the latter occasion, Mr. Sydnes approached Mr. Moody and
questioned him about his possession of the key. Mr. Moody conceded that he
lacked any training regarding proper handling of the key and indicated that Sgt.
Helle had provided it to him. Mr. Moody turned the key over to Mr. Sydnes, who
returned it to proper officials.
Troubled by what appeared to him to be a security breach, Mr. Sydnes
consulted with Mr. LaBrecque and another support engineer, Steve Hettler. Mr.
Sydnes and Mr. LaBrecque then reviewed Air Force regulations and determined
the matter should be reported. On March 31, Mr. Sydnes verbally reported his
observations to Staff Sergeant Roy James. A day later, April 1, 2004, Mr. Sydnes
reported the incident to his superior at Titan, Gary Martinez, and two military
officers at NORTHCOM responsible for communications security.
Less than two hours after Mr. Sydnes spoke with Titan and military
officials on April 1, Mr. Martinez and Lieutenant Colonel Randy McCanne, the
commander of the JSCS, confronted Mr. Sydnes and Mr. LaBrecque. Lt. Col.
McCanne was apparently upset that the violation had not been reported to him
-3-
directly, and angrily told Mr. Sydnes and Mr. LaBrecque that he was “trying to
build a team” that their actions were “tearing . . . apart.” Lt. Col. McCanne also
indicated that Sgt. Helle, who shared work space with Mr. Sydnes, “needed a
cooling off period” and had requested that Mr. Sydnes remove his belongings
from her work area, a request Lt. Col. McCanne instructed Mr. Sydnes to comply
with.
For the next week, Mr. Sydnes shared a computer and cubicle space with
Mr. LaBrecque, and on April 7 both were fired. Although Titan told them their
dismissal was a result of NORTHCOM’s decision to reduce funding for their
positions, in the weeks and months that followed Titan began recruiting engineers
to work on video-teleconferencing issues at NORTHCOM, and indeed filled the
same number of positions that existed prior to the dismissal of Mr. Sydnes and
Mr. LaBrecque.
B
Mr. Sydnes and Mr. LaBrecque filed suit against Titan and the United
States, claiming they were fired in retaliation for reporting the alleged security
breaches. They asserted claims against Titan for wrongful discharge in violation
of public policy and “extreme and outrageous” conduct, 1 and against the United
States for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, “extreme and
1
In Colorado, a claim for extreme and outrageous conduct is the same as a
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. English v. Griffin, 99 P.3d
90, 93 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
-4-
outrageous” conduct, and civil conspiracy. Both defendants moved for summary
judgment. The district court granted Titan’s motion as to the “extreme and
outrageous” conduct claim, but denied Titan’s motion with respect to the
wrongful discharge claim. Titan subsequently settled and is no longer a party to
this action. For its part, the United States argued in its motion for summary
judgment that sovereign immunity barred plaintiffs’ claims. The district court
agreed, granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment, and entered
judgment.
II
Because the sovereign may not be sued without its consent, plaintiffs
cannot proceed without establishing that the United States has agreed to answer to
their claims in court. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). As a
question of law, we review de novo the district court’s determination that such
consent is lacking, and do so bearing in mind that the party asserting jurisdiction
bears the burden of proving that sovereign immunity has been waived. James v.
United States, 970 F.2d 750, 753 (10th Cir. 1992).
The FTCA lists many types of claims for which the United States has
consented to be sued. Included among these are claims for certain injuries caused
by government employees acting within the scope of their employment. 28
U.S.C. § 1346(b). But the FTCA’s waiver in this field is subject to (many)
exceptions, and what the sovereign giveth it may also take away. Most relevant
-5-
for our purposes is the discretionary function exception, which reasserts the
government’s immunity for claims “based upon the exercise or performance or the
failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a
federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion
involved be abused.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). 2
In Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988), the Supreme Court
announced a two-part test for determining whether a challenged action falls
within the scope of the discretionary function exception. At the first stage, a
court must “consider whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting
employee.” Id. at 536. If the action does involve such choice, we must then
consider whether the type of action at issue is “susceptible to policy analysis.”
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 325 (1991). If both of these conditions
are met, the discretionary function exception applies and sovereign immunity
doctrine precludes suit. If, however, plaintiffs can show that either prong is not
met, then the exception does not apply and a claim may proceed.
In order to apply this framework, we must first pause to ask exactly what
conduct plaintiffs challenge. Despite the fact that plaintiffs were employed by
Titan, plaintiffs assert that military officials retained sufficient control over
plaintiffs’ day-to-day activities and Titan’s hiring decisions that, effectively, the
2
Because we agree that the discretionary function exception applies, we do
not reach the government’s alternative argument that jurisdiction is barred by the
FTCA’s exception for claims involving interference with contract rights.
-6-
United States either terminated plaintiffs or exercised its influence over Titan to
have them terminated. Plaintiffs’ complaint therefore identifies the challenged
conduct as “unlawfully conspiring to orchestrate plaintiffs’ wrongful
termination,” Compl. ¶ 47, or the “wrongful termination” itself, id. ¶ 54. The
United States does not contest that such a claim could conceivably fall within the
ambit of Section 1346(b)’s waiver, but argues instead that, under the
circumstances of this case, the discretionary function exception applies. 3
A
Turning to Berkovitz’s first prong, plaintiffs contend that the government’s
alleged decision to have them terminated was not an action that involved any
element of choice. Importantly, plaintiffs do not dispute that employment
decisions generally involve a significant degree of discretion by personnel
supervisors. Instead, they argue, certain motivations for firing employees are, as
a matter of law, categorically impermissible, and thus not a matter of discretion.
More specifically, they argue that NORTHCOM’s discretion to have them
terminated was, in this case, constrained by two sources of law: Colorado
3
The United States does argue that if the district court had found that
plaintiffs actually were federal employees, rather than employees of Titan over
whom the United States exercised some indicia of control, plaintiffs’ sole
recourse would be through the Civil Service Reform Act. However, on appeal
plaintiffs do not contest the district court’s treatment of their employment status,
and so we have no occasion to address this alternative argument.
-7-
common law and government regulations governing the reporting of security
breaches.
1. Plaintiffs’ common law argument follows this syllogistic path:
Colorado common law proscribes the firing of an at-will employee for any reason
that violates public policy, and government regulations dealing with the handling
of classified information establish a public policy of protecting classified
information. Therefore, NORTHCOM’s discretion to fire Mr. Sydnes and Mr.
LaBrecque in retaliation for reporting the alleged security violation was
circumscribed by Colorado common law. 4
Plaintiffs put the cart before the horse. They would have us assume that the
United States fired them in violation of Colorado common law, and on that basis
decide that the district court has jurisdiction to hear whether the United States
really did fire them in violation of Colorado common law. But we reach the
question whether the federal government is liable for breaching some duty of care
under state law if (and only if) we can first find an applicable waiver of sovereign
immunity by the federal government itself. Domme v. United States, 61 F.3d 787,
789 (10th Cir. 1995). To overcome the discretionary function exception and thus
have a chance of establishing a waiver of sovereign immunity, plaintiffs must
4
Indeed, in the context of the suit against Titan, the district court found
that the regulations dealing with classified information provided a legally
sufficient basis under Colorado law to support a wrongful discharge in violation
of public policy claim. R. at 258. Of course, as a private entity Titan could not
invoke sovereign immunity to challenge the district court’s jurisdiction.
-8-
show that the federal employee’s discretion was limited by “a federal statute,
regulation, or policy,” Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536 (emphasis added); after all,
states can’t waive the federal government’s immunity. Considering state tort law
as a limit on the federal government’s discretion at the jurisdictional stage
impermissibly conflates the merits of plaintiffs’ claims with the question whether
the United States has conferred jurisdiction on the courts to hear those claims in
the first place. Indeed, the only conceivable way plaintiffs might succeed on their
theory is by pointing to a federal policy incorporating state tort law as a limit on
the discretion of federal employees with the meaning of the FTCA. And this
plaintiffs have not done.
2. Plaintiffs’ alternative theory does point to federal regulations and
policies, but is ultimately no more availing. Plaintiffs direct us to various rules
regarding the handling of classified information and security breaches; most
pertinent for our purposes, these regulations prohibit retribution by government
officials against individuals who challenge the decision to classify (or declassify)
information, and emphasize the need to report security breaches promptly. 5 The
problem with plaintiffs’ argument is that they didn’t challenge any classification
decision, and the regulations emphasizing the need to report security breaches do
not purport to preclude retribution by officials who receive such news. Simply
5
Specifically, plaintiffs point us to Air Force Instruction 33-211 and
Department of Defense Directive 5200.1, which implement Executive Order
13292, 68 Fed. Reg. 15315.
-9-
put, even assuming that plaintiffs were fired in retaliation for reporting the
security breaches, their actions are not protected from retribution by the
regulations to which they point.
One can make a reasonable argument that officials should no more be
allowed to engage in retribution against those who report security breaches than
those who challenge classification decisions. But this is a decision for the elected
branches, and we are no more free to write their statutes and regulations for them
than they are free to write our decisions for us. And given the apparent lack of
constraining regulations in federal law identified by plaintiffs, we can only
conclude that staffing decisions related to the hiring and firing of civilian
contractors at JSCS were left to the discretion of NORTHCOM officials. Of
course, there is also the possibility that such a regulation might exist in the
copious directives of the Department of Defense and plaintiffs have, despite their
admirable diligence in pursuing this case, just missed it. But the burden under
our case law to present evidence of a discretion-constraining regulation or policy
resides with the plaintiffs. Aragon v. United States, 146 F.3d 819, 823 (10th Cir.
1998) (“The discretionary function exception poses a jurisdictional prerequisite to
suit, which the plaintiff must ultimately meet as part of his overall burden to
establish subject matter jurisdiction.”) (internal quotations omitted); Daigle v.
Shell Oil Co., 972 F.2d 1527, 1539 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding plaintiffs must cite
specific regulations the government is alleged to have violated). We have
- 10 -
examined the two theories under which they have proceeded, and neither
succeeds. More than that, we cannot say.
B
Even though they fail under Berkovitz’s first prong, plaintiffs may still
overcome the discretionary function exception by demonstrating, pursuant to
Berkovitz’s second prong, that “the nature of the actions taken” does not
“implicate public policy concerns, or [is not] ‘susceptible to policy analysis.’”
Harrell v. United States, 443 F.3d 1231, 1236 (10th Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs argue
that they meet this test because their firings were not the product of any
legitimate public policy concern; they emphasize that the only contemporaneous
reason the government cited for their dismissal was that their positions were
defunded – and this explanation, they contend, was obviously pretextual given the
rapidity with which their positions were refunded and filled.
Plaintiffs’ argument, reasonable though it sounds on the merits,
misapprehends the nature of our sovereign immunity inquiry under Berkovitz.
Consistent with Congress’s instruction that the discretionary function exception
applies even when “the discretion involved be abused,” 28 U.S.C. 2680(a), we
may entertain a claim only when the plaintiff can demonstrate that the
“challenged actions are not the kind of conduct that can be said to be grounded in
the policy of the regulatory regime,” Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325 (emphasis added).
That is, we do not inquire into the intent of the government supervisor when
- 11 -
making a specific personnel decision, Harrell, 443 F.3d. at 1235, and neither do
we ask “whether policy analysis is the actual reason for the decision in question,”
Duke v. Dept. of Agric., 131 F.3d 1407, 1413 (10th Cir. 1997) (Briscoe, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added). Instead, we operate
at a higher level of generality than plaintiffs argue for, asking categorically
(rather than case specifically) whether the kind of conduct at issue can be based
on policy concerns.
We have previously and unqualifiedly held that “[d]ecisions regarding
employment and termination” – the kind of conduct at issue here – are “precisely
the types of administrative action the discretionary function exception seeks to
shield.” Richman v. Straley, 48 F.3d 1139, 1146-47 (10th Cir. 1995). We see no
way to escape the gravity of this precedent in the disposition of this case.
Whatever may’ve occurred in the specifics of plaintiffs’ situation, employment
and termination decisions are, as a class, the kind of matters requiring
consideration of a wide range of policy factors, including “budgetary constraints,
public perception, economic conditions, individual backgrounds, office diversity,
experience and employer intuition.” Burkhart v. Washington Metro Area Transit
Auth., 112 F.3d 1207, 1217 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Tonelli v. United States, 60
F.3d 492, 496 (8th Cir. 1995). Choosing how to evaluate these various policy
considerations, determining which to give more weight to, and ultimately
deciding whether a particular individual with a certain skill-set and temperament
- 12 -
will help an agency fulfill its mission all involve sensitive policy judgments, and
an employer or supervisor must decide which blend of skills will best aid the
agency in performing its legally-prescribed duties. Forcing the government, at
the jurisdictional stage, to defend its rationale for its employment decision in
particular cases would, moreover, eviscerate the benefits of sovereign immunity
that Congress has chosen to retain in discretionary function cases, and essentially
enmesh us in a mini-trial about the merits. As we have said in the context of state
sovereign immunity, “immunity entitles a [sovereign] not only to protection from
liability, but also from suit, including the burden of discovery.” Univ. of Texas v.
Vratil, 96 F.3d 1337, 1340 (10th Cir. 1996).
The two cases plaintiffs primarily depend upon in arguing for a contrary
result dictate no such thing. In O’Toole v. United States, 295 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir
2002), and ARA Leisure Servs. v. United States, 831 F.2d 193 (9th Cir 1987), our
sister circuit rejected the government’s argument that the need to allocate scarce
budgetary resources alone was a sufficient policy basis to trigger the discretionary
function exception. These cases, however, did not involve employment decisions,
but rather were cases in which government agencies charged with maintaining in
good condition certain infrastructure on government-owned land had failed to do
so. In both cases, budgetary constraints were the sole policy consideration the
government offered as being relevant to the kind of conduct in question,
maintenance decisions. O’Toole, 295 F.3d at 1036; ARA Leisure Servs., 831 F.2d
- 13 -
at 195. Here, by contrast, the government has argued (in harmony with our
holding in Richman) that employment decisions are of a kind that involve not
only budgetary concerns, but also managerial and human resources
considerations, “including the staff’s capabilities and effectiveness,” Gov’t Br. at
14. That such matters may be considered in making employment decisions
suffices to distinguish such conduct from the “routine maintenance” decisions at
issue in O’Toole and ARA Leisure Services. 6
***
A federal agency’s decision to terminate or request the termination of an
employee involves an element of choice and is the kind of decision that
implicates policy concerns relating to accomplishing the agency’s mission. The
plaintiffs’ suit against the United States, however strong it may be on the merits,
6
Plaintiffs also point us to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Towing
Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955), a case in which the Supreme Court held
that the FTCA did not bar jurisdiction in a suit against the Coast Guard for failing
to maintain a lighthouse. However, like many of our sister circuits, we have
recognized post-Gaubert that Indian Towing “is simply not persuasive authority
in the context of the discretionary function exception.” Harrell, 443 F.3d at
1237.
Even so, plaintiffs contend that, at the very least, their claim for “extreme
and outrageous” conduct survives the discretionary function exception because no
public policy could possibly be served by allowing a government employee to
berate and “verbal[ly] abuse” employees in the manner that plaintiffs maintain Lt.
Col. McCanne berated them. Plaintiffs are, however, bound by their pleadings in
this regard. Their complaint identifies the allegedly outrageous conduct as
“unlawfully conspiring to orchestrate plaintiffs’ wrongful termination in violation
of public policy.” Compl. ¶ 47. Plaintiffs thus did not attempt to make out any
tort claims on any basis other than their termination.
- 14 -
is therefore barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, and the
district court’s judgment is
Affirmed.
- 15 -