Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05036/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05036-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene Glynn
Appellant
Joseph Halvey
Appellant
Immigration & Naturalization Service
Appellee
Francis Reale
Appellant
Janet Reno
Appellee
John Clement Ryan
Appellant
United States Department of Justice
Appellee

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 7, 1998 Decided February 26, 1999

No. 98-5036

John Clement Ryan, Eugene Glynn,

Francis Reale and Joseph Halvey,

Appellants

v.

Janet Reno, United States Attorney General,

United States Department of Justice and

United States Immigration & Naturalization Service,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 96cv01015)

William F. Causey argued the cause for the appellants.

Harry J. Kelly, III was on brief for the appellants.

Diane M. Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, argued the cause for the appellees. Wilma A. Lewis, United

States Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant United

States Attorney, were on brief for the appellees.

Before: Ginsburg, Henderson and Rogers, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: Appellants

John C. Ryan, Eugene Glynn, Francis Reale and Joseph

Halvey challenge the district court's dismissal of their employment discrimination suit. In their complaint the appellants, who are of Irish birth and of dual Irish and American

citizenship, alleged that the United States Department of

Justice (DOJ) and the United States Immigration and NatuUSCA Case #98-5036 Document #419129 Filed: 02/26/1999 Page 1 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ralization Service (INS) denied them security clearances and

withdrew offers of employment contingent on the clearances

on account of national origin and citizenship in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. s 2000e2.1 The district court dismissed the action, concluding it

lacked jurisdiction to review the reason given for withdrawing

the offers-that because of the length of time the appellants

had lived abroad, DOJ could not conduct adequate background investigations to grant them the required clearances.

We review the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

de novo, taking as true the facts alleged in the complaint.

Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert.

denied, 117 S. Ct. 75 (1996). Applying this standard, we

conclude that the district court's dismissal should be affirmed.

I.

The material facts are undisputed. In April 1998 INS

announced openings for Immigration Inspectors at Shannon

__________

1 Subsection (a)(1) of section 2000e-2 makes it "an unlawful

employment practice for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or

to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any

individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color,

religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. s 2000e-2(a)(1). The

complaint also alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. s 1981, but the appellants have not pursued the

claim on appeal.

International Airport in Shannon, Ireland and published an

advertisement in Irish newspapers soliciting applicants. The

Immigration Inspector position is a "sensitive" one requiring

background investigations and security clearance of applicants. The appellants, then residents of Ireland, applied for

the openings. In letters dated July 7, 1988 Robert A. Cleary,

Chief of the Operations Services Branch of the INS Personnel and Training Division, informed each of the applicants

that each had been "tentatively selected" for the positions

"pending satisfactory completion of security requirements"

and requested that each notify INS of his "acceptance or

declination" and complete and return enclosed security forms.

Joint Appendix (JA) 97-100. Each appellant accepted the

offer and returned the forms as requested. To expedite the

applicants' hiring, INS sent "waiver packages" to DOJ's

Office of Security and Emergency Planning Staff (SEPS). A

memorandum in each package requested "a waiver of the

preappointment full-field investigation" of each applicant and

asserted: "The individual will not have access to classified

information until after the requisite full-field background

investigation has been completed and an appropriate security

clearance granted pursuant to applicable Departmental regulations. Access to sensitive Department of Justice information will be kept to a minimum." See, e.g., JA 185, 186. The

waiver requests were "disapproved" on June 27, 1989. In a

memorandum to INS of the same date, SEPS Director Jerry

Rubino explained the disapproval:

USCA Case #98-5036 Document #419129 Filed: 02/26/1999 Page 2 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Since these applicants have lived in Ireland for a period

of years and cannot be adequately investigated for the

purpose of determining their trustworthiness, and therefore their eligibility to occupy sensitive positions, I have

decided to disapprove your waiver request.

... I recommend that full-field [background investigations] should not be conducted on these individuals. Due

to the sensitivity of these positions, I believe that INS

should find candidates that have lived in the United

States for the last several years so that an adequate fullfield [background investigation] can be conducted.

USCA Case #98-5036 Document #419129 Filed: 02/26/1999 Page 3 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

JA 301. Accordingly, INS personnel chief Cleary informed

each applicant in a letter dated August 15, 1989: "The

Department of Justice Security Office has determined that,

since you have lived in Ireland for an extended period of time,

an adequate background investigation cannot be conducted to

determine your eligibility to occupy a sensitive position.

Therefore, we must withdraw our previous appointment offer." See, e.g, JA 361-63. Later that year DOJ promulgated

a policy requiring that an Immigration Inspector applicant

"have for three of the five years immediately prior to applying for this position: 1) resided in the United States; 2)

worked for the United States overseas in a Federal or

military capacity; or 3) be [sic] a dependent of a Federal or

military employee serving overseas." JA 358.

In May and June 1990 the four unsuccessful applicants filed

discrimination complaints with DOJ. In a decision dated

September 29, 1993 an administrative law judge (ALJ) found

that "the Agency discriminated against Complainants on the

basis of their national origin, Irish American, when their

offers of tentative employment for the position of Immigration Inspector at Shannon Airport in Ireland were withdrawn

on August 15, 1989." JA 563. In a final agency decision

dated December 2, 1993 the DOJ Complaint Adjudication

Office rejected the ALJ's finding of discrimination both for

lack of evidentiary support and because the decision not to

issue a security clearance was unreviewable under Egan v.

Department of Navy, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).

On September 9, 1994 the four complainants appealed the

DOJ decision to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which affirmed DOJ on the sole

ground that the complainants had failed to prove discrimination. The EEOC rejected DOJ's conclusion that review of

the security clearance denial was barred, stating: "The Commission has repeatedly held that it has no authority to review

the substance of security clearance determinations or the

validity of the employer's requirement of a security clearance,

but that it does have the authority to determine whether the

grant, denial, or revocation of a security clearance was conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner." JA 606 (citations

USCA Case #98-5036 Document #419129 Filed: 02/26/1999 Page 4 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

omitted). On February 1, 1996 the EEOC denied the complainants' request for reconsideration.

Ryan filed this action in the district court on May 2, 1996

and the three other plaintiffs were joined in December 1996.

On September 30, 1997 the government filed a motion to

dismiss or for summary judgment on the grounds that (1)

only one plaintiff (Ryan) had timely filed suit and (2) the

court lacked jurisdiction to review the security clearance

decision. In a memorandum opinion and order dated January 28, 1998 the district court dismissed the action for lack of

jurisdiction concluding it could not assess the sufficiency of

the plaintiffs' claims without reviewing Rubino's decision not

to grant security clearances-a review that was foreclosed

under Egan. The four plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.

II.

The outcome here is controlled, as DOJ and the district

court concluded, by the Supreme Court's decision in Egan v.

Department of Navy, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). The respondent in

Egan had been hired to work at the Navy's Trident Naval

Refit Facility in Bremerton, Washington contingent on "satisfactory completion of security and medical reports." 484 U.S.

at 520. When the Director of the Naval Civilian Personnel

Command denied him a security clearance, Egan was discharged as ineligible to work at the facility. Egan appealed

his discharge to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board)

which concluded it was without authority to review the clearance. Egan then appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of

Appeals, which reversed the Board and remanded for review

of the clearance decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Federal Circuit, holding that the

Board lacked authority "to review the substance of an underlying decision to deny or revoke a security clearance in the

course of reviewing an adverse action." Egan, 484 U.S. at

520. The Court explained:

For "reasons ... too obvious to call for enlarged discussion," CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 170, 105 S.Ct. 1881,

USCA Case #98-5036 Document #419129 Filed: 02/26/1999 Page 5 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1888, 85 L.Ed.2d 173 (1985), the protection of classified

information must be committed to the broad discretion of

the agency responsible, and this must include broad

discretion to determine who may have access to it. Certainly, it is not reasonably possible for an outside nonexpert body to review the substance of such a judgment

and to decide whether the agency should have been able

to make the necessary affirmative prediction with confidence. Nor can such a body determine what constitutes

an acceptable margin of error in assessing the potential

risk.

484 U.S. at 529. Three other circuits have held that Egan

applies in a Title VII action to preclude a "nonexpert body"--

whether administrative or judicial--from resolving a discrimination claim based on an adverse employment action resulting

from an agency security clearance decision. See Becerra v.

Dalton, 94 F.3d 145, 149 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117

S. Ct. 1087 (1997); Perez v. FBI, 71 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 1995),

cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1234 (1996); Brazil v. United States

Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,

517 U.S. 1103 (1996). We now join those courts.

To determine the merits of the appellants' Title VII claims,

it is necessary to apply the burden allocation scheme first

announced in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.

792 (1973):

Under the first step of McDonnell-Douglas the complainant must establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

... If the complainant succeeds in establishing a prima

facie case, the second step of the McDonnell-Douglas

framework shifts the burden to the defendant employer

to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

its adverse employment action. If the defendant does so,

then under the third step of McDonnell-Douglas the

complainant must produce evidence showing that the

defendant's proffered reason is but a pretext for discrimination.

Paquin v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 119 F.3d 23, 26

(D.C. Cir. 1997). In a case such as this, however, a court

USCA Case #98-5036 Document #419129 Filed: 02/26/1999 Page 6 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

cannot clear the second step of McDonnell-Douglas without

running smack up against Egan. The nondiscriminatory

reason proffered below for withdrawing the employment offers was that the applicants' long residence abroad prevented

DOJ from conducting an adequate security clearance background investigation. The appellants could not challenge the

proffered reason's authenticity without also challenging its

validity-as their arguments before the district court made

manifest. See District Court Opinion at 19 (JA 26) n.12

("Plaintiffs repeatedly claim that the fact that the State

Department may have been able to conduct the investigation

abroad acts to undermine Mr. Rubino's decision that no

investigation adequately could assess the Plaintiffs' trustworthiness."). As the Ninth Circuit explained:

The more valid a reason appears upon evaluation, the

less likely a court will be to find that reason pretextual;

the converse is also true. Even when the court faces

independent evidence of a discriminatory motive, it is

still necessary to weigh the validity of the defendant's

proffered reasons when deciding if they are pretextual.

In short, the merit of such decisions simply cannot be

wholly divorced from a determination of whether they

are legitimate or pretextual.

Brazil v. United States Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d at 197.

Because the district court below could not proceed with the

appellants' discrimination action without reviewing the merits

of DOJ's decision not to grant a clearance, the court was

foreclosed from proceeding at all.

The appellants attempt to circumvent Egan by characterizing the challenged employment actions as procedural, divorced from any substantive security determination. According to the appellants: "The focus of the district court would

be on the procedure used by DOJ to consider the waiver

requests and the reason why DOJ denied the waivers, and not

on whether the appellants should or should not receive actual

security clearances." Br. of Appellants at 36. But DOJ

denied the waivers because it concluded no clearances should

be granted without more extensive investigations than were

USCA Case #98-5036 Document #419129 Filed: 02/26/1999 Page 7 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

possible here. Thus, the waiver denials were tantamount to

clearance denials and were based on the same sort of "predictive judgment" that Egan tells us "must be made by those

with the necessary expertise in protecting classified information," without interference from the courts. Egan, 484 U.S.

at 529.2

For the preceding reasons we hold that under Egan an

adverse employment action based on denial or revocation of a

security clearance is not actionable under Title VII.3 We

emphasize that our holding is limited to Title VII discrimination actions and does not apply to actions alleging deprivation

of constitutional rights. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603

(1988) ("[W]here Congress intends to preclude judicial review

of constitutional claims its intent to do so must be clear....

We require this heightened showing in part to avoid the

'serious constitutional question' that would arise if a federal

statute were construed to deny any judicial forum for a

colorable constitutional claim.") (citations omitted); National

Federation of Fed. Employees v. Greenberg, 983 F.2d 286, 289

(D.C. Cir. 1993); United States Information Agency v. Krc,

905 F.2d 389, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The district court's

dismissal is

Affirmed.

__________

2 In fact, to support their "procedural" argument the appellants

expressly assert the feasibility of adequate investigations. See Br.

of Appellants at 41-43.

3 In Egan the Supreme Court noted its holding was "fortified" by

the fact that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 "by its terms

does not confer broad authority on the Board to review a securityclearance determination." 484 U.S. at 530. Our decision is fortified

by Title VII's express language exempting employment actions

based on security clearance possession vel non. See 42 U.S.C.

s 2000e-2(g); see also Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145, 149 (4th Cir.

1996) ("We agree that there is no unmistakable expression of

purpose by Congress in Title VII to subject the decision of the

Navy to revoke Becerra's security clearance to judicial scrutiny.").

USCA Case #98-5036 Document #419129 Filed: 02/26/1999 Page 8 of 8