Roth v. States

USCA1 Opinion









UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
__________

No. 91-1694

NORMA F. ROTH,
Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Appellee.

__________

ERRATA SHEET
ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of the Court issued on December 30, 1991, is
amended as follows:

On page 6, line 5, "actions[s]" should be corrected to read
"action[s]."






















































_________________________


No. 91-1694
NORMA F. ROTH,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant, Appellee.

_________________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________


_________________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________

_________________________


Norman Jackman, with whom Martha M. Wishart and Jackman &
_______________ _________________ _________
Roth were on brief, for appellant.
____
Roberta T. Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, with
_________________
whom Judith S. Yogman, Acting United States Attorney, was on
_________________
brief, for appellee.


_________________________





_________________________














SELYA, Circuit Judge. Concluding that the plaintiff's
SELYA, Circuit Judge.
______________

complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the United States District

Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed an action

brought by the plaintiff, Norma F. Roth, against the United

States.1 Roth appeals from the order of dismissal. We affirm.

I.
I.

We eschew an exegetic statement of the facts, opting

instead to discuss the averments of the complaint, to the extent

required, in connection with the body of the appeal. We do,

however, pause to reflect on the standard that governs our

oversight.

It is settled that "[a]ppellate review of a dismissal

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is plenary." Miranda v. Ponce
_______ _____

Federal Bank, ___ F.2d ___, ___ (1st Cir. 1991) [No. 90-2214,
____________

slip op. at 3]. We, like the district court, are bound by the

principle that a civil complaint seeking money damages should not

be jettisoned for failure to state an actionable claim unless it

____________________

1Roth's action was originally brought against a government
official, Anne Harlan. On motion, the United States was substi-
tuted as party defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2679(d)(1)
(1988). The plaintiff has not appealed from the order of
substitution. In any event, the matters complained of Harlan's
statements and actions, described infra were sufficiently
_____
workplace-related that, even without the order of substitution,
dismissal would have been appropriate on preemption grounds, for
essentially the reasons stated infra. See, e.g., Bush v. Lucas,
_____ ___ ____ ____ _____
462 U.S. 367, 388-90 (1983) (holding constitutional tort action
against supervisor to be preempted under Civil Service Reform Act
of 1978); Berrios v. Department of the Army, 884 F.2d 28, 32 (1st
_______ ______________________
Cir. 1989) (holding state-law defamation claims against
supervisors to be likewise preempted); Broughton v. Courtney, 861
_________ ________
F.2d 639, 644 (11th Cir. 1988) (similar).

3














plainly appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts

thereunder which would entitle her to recover. Id. at ___ [slip
___

op. at 3-4], citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
______ ______

In performing the requisite tamisage and assessing sufficiency, a

court must accept as true the complaint's well-pled factual

averments, excluding, however, "bald assertions, periphrastic

circumlocutions, unsubstantiated conclusions, or outright

vituperation." Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d
_______________ __________________

49, 52 (1st Cir. 1990). At the same time, the court must draw

all inferences reasonably extractable from the pleaded facts in

the manner most congenial to the plaintiff's theory. Miranda,
_______

___ F.2d at ___ [slip op. at 2]; Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth
_________________ _________

College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir. 1989). In the last analysis,
_______

a plaintiff is obliged to set forth in her complaint "factual

allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each

material element necessary to sustain recovery under some

actionable legal theory." Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d
______ _______________

513, 515 (1st Cir. 1988). If she has succeeded in this task,

dismissal will not lie under Rule 12(b)(6).

II.
II.

The plaintiff's complaint was brought in two counts,

both growing out of the same nucleus of operative facts. One

count sought money damages. The other count sought injunctive

relief. We hold that, to the extent the suit is still live, see
___

infra note 2, it is preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act of
_____

1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (1978) (CSRA), codified


4














in various sections of 5 U.S.C.

A.
A.
__

At all times material hereto, Roth served as Branch

Manager, Labor Relations, in the Burlington, Massachusetts,

office of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The

situation of which she complains arose out of actions taken by

her supervisor, Anne Harlan, the FAA's Division Manager.

According to Roth, Harlan bore a grudge against her dating back

to 1977 a grudge stemming from an incident that occurred when

both women were working in the private sector. Roth averred

that, once fate reunited the two women, this time as FAA

officials, Harlan became a constant thorn in her side. The

relationship hit rock bottom in the 1989-1990 time frame, when

the FAA considered discharging an employee named Richard Fontes.

Roth was involved in the termination proceedings. She alleged

that, thanks to Harlan, the proceedings took on a highly

irregular cast; that Fontes' constitutional rights were

imperilled; that Harlan attempted to enlist Roth's cooperation in

a wholly improper course of conduct; that Roth's refusal to

knuckle under enraged Harlan; and that Harlan proceeded to

complain loudly, openly, and unfairly about Roth's job

performance. In Roth's view, these slurs caused her grievous

harm. Believing Harlan's utterances and associated conduct to be

actionable, Roth sued for damages.2

____________________

2Roth also asked that the district court issue "an
injunction prohibiting [Harlan] from taking any action to coerce
[Roth] into violating the Constitution and/or laws of the United

5














B.
B.
__

The CSRA was meant to provide a comprehensive framework

for personnel policies governing federal employees. See Saul v.
___ ____

United States, 928 F.2d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 1991), citing S. Rep.
_____________

No. 969, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 3, 53 (1978); Montplaisir v.
___________

Leighton, 875 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1989). In the course of that
________

endeavor, Congress set out procedures for challenging "prohibited

personnel practices." 5 U.S.C. 2302. The prohibited personnel

practices covered by the CSRA include "personnel actions" that

transgress the law's merit system principles merit system

principles which require the federal sovereign to treat its

employees fairly and shield them from capricious actions,


____________________

States and/or the rules of the FAA, and to remove [Harlan] from
her position as Division Manager to prevent her from further
violations of the constitutional rights of employees of the FAA."
After filing suit, however, Roth resigned from the FAA, effective
June 7, 1991. Her quest for injunctive relief is, therefore,
moot; from June 7 forward, she had no further stake in the
agency's operation and "lack[ed] a legally cognizable interest in
the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969); see
______ _________ ___
also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 n.10 (1974) ("The
____ _______ ________
rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must be
extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the
complaint is filed."). Since Roth is no longer in the FAA's
employ, any attempts to pressure her to act in illegal or
unconstitutional ways would be pointless. Thus, Roth's
resignation quelled any "reasonable expectation . . . that the
alleged violation will recur." County of Los Angeles v. Davis,
______________________ _____
440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). Moreover, while Roth can continue to
pursue her claim for damages caused by Harlan's past conduct,
accepted principles of standing foreclose her, now that she has
become a private citizen, from maintaining a suit to oust Harlan
or curb Harlan's excesses in order to protect others or vindicate
the public weal. See, e.g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499
___ ____ _____ ______
(1975) ("[T]he plaintiff generally must assert his own legal
rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the
legal rights or interests of third parties."); Gordon v.
______
Crouchley, 554 F. Supp. 796, 798 (D.R.I. 1982) (similar).
_________

6














personal vendettas, favoritism, and the like. See Saul, 928 F.2d
___ ____

at 833. The thrust of Roth's allegations is that the combination

of Harlan's aspersions and conduct demeaned Roth and subjected

her to arbitrary action. Thus, the threshold question is whether

Harlan's antics, as Roth portrayed them, would qualify as a

prohibited personnel practice within the contemplation of the

CSRA.3

Under the CSRA, personnel actions include "corrective

actions[s]." 5 U.S.C. 2302(a)(2)(A)(iii). The corrective

action category is a capacious one, encompassing a wide variety

of conduct affecting federal employees. See Saul, 928 F.2d at
___ ____

834. The slanderous utterances that Roth bemoans, while

allegedly untrue, nevertheless concerned her job performance.

Those comments reflected a profound disagreement between Harlan

and Roth about the manner in which Fontes' termination

proceedings and, perhaps, termination proceedings generally

should appropriately be conducted. Harlan's behavior, as

described in the complaint, to the extent that Roth retains

standing to pursue it, see supra note 2, was similarly job-
___ _____

related. In sum, an objective assessment of the complaint leaves

no doubt that Roth was attempting to sue over utterances and

associated acts which reflected dissatisfaction with her work

within the FAA and which focused upon substantial conflicts anent

agency policy and procedures. For CSRA purposes, then, Roth's


____________________

3Roth has not questioned the applicability of the CSRA to
federal employees of her rank and type.

7














complaint, no matter how generously it might be read, alleged a

prohibited personnel practice, that is, a personnel action

violative of the merit principles. Accord Saul, 928 F.2d at 834.
______ ____



This conclusion sounds the death knell for Roth's

statement of claim. It is now beyond serious question that the

CSRA preempts state-law challenges to prohibited personnel

practices in the federal workplace. See Berrios v. Department of
___ _______ _____________

the Army, 884 F.2d 28, 32 (1st Cir. 1989) (holding that, where
_________

the CSRA pertains, defamation claims touching upon prohibited

personnel practices are preempted); Montplaisir, 875 F.2d at 8
___________

(holding former government employees' private tort action against

union lawyers to be preempted by "the comprehensive nature of the

[CSRA's] remedial scheme"); Broughton v. Courtney, 861 F.2d 639,
_________ ________

643 (11th Cir. 1988) ("If plaintiff's state law claims . . . are

within the scope of the coverage of the CSRA, then the actions

are preempted by the CSRA."). As we stated on an earlier

occasion:

The legislative history of the CSRA
establishes beyond dispute that Congress
intended that statute to provide an exclusive
procedure for challenging federal personnel
decisions. . . . "The history and intent of
the CSRA plainly prefigures that collateral
district court jurisdiction would impede the
ideals of fast, efficient management and
greater uniformity in the judicial review
process."

Berrios, 884 F.2d at 31-32 (quoting Tucker v. Defense Mapping
_______ ______ ________________

Agency, 607 F. Supp. 1232, 1240 n.6 (D.R.I. 1985)). It follows
______

inexorably that Roth's claim is preempted.

8














C.
C.
__

To this point, the drill is straightforward. Roth,

however, has a fallback position. She says that, in her case,

administrative remedies have been almost, if not entirely,

foreclosed by the bodies from whom she has sought succor, viz.,

the Merit Systems Protection Board and its Office of Special

Counsel (both citing lack of jurisdiction). In addition, she

points out that administrative remedies, even if available, make

no provision for damage awards to deserving complainants.

The short answer to these assertions is that they are

nihil ad rem. As to Roth's complaint about the lack of an
_____ __ ___

accessible administrative mechanism, we agree with the Ninth

Circuit that, even where the CSRA provides no guaranteed forum,

"preemption of . . . work-related tort claims is necessary to

fulfill congressional intent." Saul, 928 F.2d at 843. As to
____

Roth's grievance concerning the unavailability of damage awards,

Montplaisir controls. There, in addressing a near-identical
___________

remonstrance, we responded: "That injured employees might be

left without a means of recovering money damages is a necessary

consequence of the [comprehensive nature of the CSRA]. Congress,

in its wisdom, was fully entitled to prefer administrative

enforcement to civil trials." Montplaisir, 875 F.2d at 5.
___________

We will not paint the lily. We suggest that the

Supreme Court, in its landmark decision construing the CSRA, has

itself provided a powerful refutation of Roth's lack-of-remedy

argument:


9














The question is not what remedy the court
should provide for a wrong that would
otherwise go unredressed. It is whether an
elaborate remedial system that has been
constructed step by step, with careful
attention to conflicting policy
considerations, should be augmented by the
creation of a new judicial remedy . . . .
That question obviously cannot be answered
simply by noting that existing remedies do
not provide complete relief for the
plaintiff. The policy judgment should be
informed by a thorough understanding of the
existing regulatory structure and the
respective costs and benefits that would
result from the addition of another remedy. .
. .

Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 388 (1983). On the basis of Bush,
____ _____ ____

as explicated in Berrios, Montplaisir, and Saul, we find Roth's
_______ ___________ ____

lamentations about the inadequacies of administrative relief

under the CSRA to be an exercise in irrelevancy.

III.
III.

Since civil service reform became a legislative reality

in 1978, the Supreme Court "has jealously guarded CSRA against

inconcinnous judicial incursions." Montplaisir, 875 F.2d at 3;
___________

accord Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 951 (9th Cir. 1991)
______ ______ _____________

(stating that "Congress's purpose in enacting the CSRA was to

channel grievances and disputes arising out of government

employment into a single system of administrative procedures and

remedies"). We are obliged to do no less. Considering the

CSRA's breadth and the comprehensive, integrated nature of its

remedial scheme, we believe the field is rather fully occupied,

leaving little, if any, room for state-law tort anodynes.

Indeed, "[p]erforming the requisite analysis . . . leads to the


10














inescapable conclusion that Congress intended to preempt state-

law tort actions." Montplaisir, 875 F.2d at 5.
___________

We need go no further. In general, a federal employee

whose position comes within CSRA's reach may seek redress for the











untoward effects of a prohibited personnel practice only through

the panoply of remedies that CSRA itself affords. Roth's case,

as she has stated it, is completely engulfed within this

generality.4



Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________













____________________

4In view of our disposition of this matter, we need not
consider the government's alternative asseveration that the
plaintiff's complaint, insofar as it seeks an award of damages,
is also barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act, more
specifically, 28 U.S.C. 2680(h) (precluding maintenance against
the federal sovereign of "[a]ny claim arising out of . . .
slander"). By the same token, it would be supererogatory for us
to decide the plaintiff's motion to supplement the record; with
or without supplementation, the show has closed.

11