For mer U.S. Secr etar

y of Agriculture Mike J ohanns wa s named a s the orig inal 1 defe ndant in this case. Pursuant to F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 25( d), the Court a uto matic a lly

su bs tit ute s h is s uc c e sso r, Th oma s J. V ils a c k, a s th e ne w d e fe nd ant. -1- UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
F AZ AL RAHMAN , P h.D., P la in t if f, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 06 -1 28 3 ( JD B) TH OMA S J. VI LS ACK, 1 U.S. Secre tary of Agriculture , Defendan t.
M EM OR AN DU M and O RD ER Plaintiff Fazal Rahman, pr ocee ding pr o se, cha lleng es an a dminist rative c lass action settlement agree ment resolvingdiscrimination claims broug ht by a g roup of Asia

n/PacificAmeric an employees a g ainst the U.S. Depa rtment of Agriculture ( "U SDA") under Title VI Iof the Civil R ights Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Rahman a lso alleg es that he w as not selec ted for two positions at USDA bec ause of his race . Currently

befor e the Court is [50] USD A' s mo tio n f

or pa rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt, a s w e ll a s [57 ] Rahma n' s " Mo tio n f

or A F a ir Relief Unde r the B asu Class Settlement." F or the re asons detailed be low, the Court will gr ant USDA' s motion and deny Rahman' s motion.

BACK GR OUND Rahman, an A merica

n of Pakistani desce nt, is a former USDA employ ee. I

n 2001, afte r beingturned down f

or two hig h-leve l positi ons at the ag ency , Rahman filed a n Equal-2-

Em plo y me nt O pp or

tun ity c omp la int . Se e De f. ' s Jan . 2 2, 20 09 Me m. [D oc ke t E ntr y 44 ], E xhibi t 1. In h is c omp la int , Ra

hma n a lle g e d th at he ha d b e e n d isc ri min ate d a g a ins t on the ba sis of

his
rac e, national or igin, a g e, and in r eprisal f or prior pr otected a ctivity . See id. B e fo re the Eq

ua l E mpl oy

me nt O pp or

tun ity Commis sio n ( " EE OC " ) c on sid e re d th e me ri ts of his claims, howeve r, it held Rahman' s complaint in abeyance pendingthe re solution of a separ ate a dminist rative c lass action then pr ocee ding be fore the EEOC (" the B asu cla ss action" ). Se e id. , Watts De c l. ¶

3. Th e B a su

c la ss, a s in iti a lly

c on dit ion a lly

c e rt if ie d b y the EE OC , consisted of " all Asian employ ees of the ag ency

who wer e elig ible for but have not rec eived promotions and all Asian per sons who have a pplied for positions with the ag ency but have not be e n s e le c te d. " I d. , E xhibi t 10 , at 5. Th e pa rt ie s d o n ot d isp ute tha

t pl a int if f f a lls wi thi n th is definition. The pa rties to the B asu cla ss action enter ed into a Settlement Ag ree ment in late 2003. See id., Exhi bit 9 (Settlement Ag ree ment). The a g ree ment altere d the conditionally -ce rtified class def inition t o include only

"[a]ll current Asia

n/Pacific I slander e mploy ees at the GS-7 level and above who wer e elig ible for but have not rec eived pr omotions and all Asian/Pacific I slander
curr ent employ ees who wer e elig ible for a nd have a pplied for positions with the Depar tment but have not be en sele cted." I d., Ex hibit 9, at 2 (emphases a dded). Rahma n f ile d a n o bje c tio n to the pr op os e d s e ttl e me nt w iththe EE OC . H e argue d th at it
wa s unf a ir to n arr owthe c la ss d e fi nit ion , a nd that th e c la ss a g e nts we re se t to re c e ive an und uly larg e portion of the se ttlement. See id., Ex hibit 21. R ahman a lso asked to interve ne on beha lf of the class. See id., Ex hibit 22. The EEOC administrative judg e ac knowledg ed Rahman' s (and oth e rs ' ) o bje c tio ns , b ut n e ve rt he le ss gra nte d f ina l a pp ro va l to the se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt, fi nd ingitRahman filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the District of 2 Arizona. The c ase w as transf err ed to this Court upon USDA's motion.

-3- to be " fair, a dequate , and re asonable to the Class as a whole." I d., Ex hibit 20, at 2 n.1, 12. Rahman appe aled the se ttlement's a pproval to the EEO C's Of fice of F eder al Oper ations ( " O F O " )
. S e e i d
. , E x h i b i t2 4 ( n o t i c e o f a p p e a l )
. O F O a f

f i r m e d th e s e t t l e m e n t ' s a

p p r o v a l
. It
c on c lud e d th at th e se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt' s p la in l angua g e e xclu de d Ra hma n f ro m th e B a su

c la ss, and " [b] ased on [this] findingthat [he] is not a class member entitled to relief pur suant to the subject settlement agree ment," de clined to addr ess Rahman' s argument that the settlement wa s unfair to c lass members. I d., Ex hibit 29, at 7. Ra hm an fi leda mo ti onfor reco ns id erat io n, id ., Ex hi bi t 3 0, as w ell as a r equ estfor OFO to p re ve nt U SDAfr om i mpl e me nti ngthe se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt, id. Exhi bit 32 . O F O d e nie d b oth motions. S ee id., Exhibit35. Rahman then sued U SDA in fede ral district cour t, seekingan orde r enjoining implementation of the B asu settlement agree ment, a dec laration that the ag ree ment is void, and an orde r re quiringUSDA to restore the orig inal class def inition and neg otiate a f

air a g ree ment wi th a ne w s e t of

c la ss a g e nts . Se e Com

pl. at 17 -1 8. He a lso re qu e ste d b a c kp ay fo r h is ind ivi du a l T itl e VI Ic la ims , c omp e ns ator y and punit ive dama g e s, and

the " of fe r o f a su ita ble position" of employ

ment. See Compl. at 18. 2 This Court has twice de nied motions to di smiss R ahman' s challeng e to the B asu settlement ag ree ment. See Rahman v. Johanns, 575 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2008) [Rahman I I ], R ahman v. J ohanns, 501 F . Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2007) [Rahman I ]. I n its mostrec ent opinion, the Court instructed the pa

rties to submit m emora

nda addr essing , amongother thing s, whether the Court has-4-

j ur i s d i c t i o nt o r e v i e wth e E E O C ' s d e c i s i o n s r e g ar d i n gth e B a s us e t t l e m e n ta g r e e m e n t . R ah m anII, 57 5 F . Su pp . 2 d at 13 5. Af

te r r e vie wi ngthe se me mor and a , th e Court a sk e d th e pa

rt ie s to su bmi t their views on whe ther, " assuming th[e] Court has jurisdiction t o revie w the EEOC' s determination that plaintiff is not a member of the B asu settlement cla ss, the Court should nonetheless aff irm that deter mination." See O ct. 12, 2009 Orde r [Docket Entry 49], at 1. The Court now has bef ore it the parties' response s to that order, a s well as motions filed by both parties -- including U SDA' s motion fo r p art ia l summa

ry jud g me nt. STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW Summary judgme nt is appropriate when the ple ading s and the e vidence demonstrate that

" the re is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l f

a c t and that th e mov ant i s e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matter of la

w." Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) . The pa rty seekingsummary

judgme nt bear s the initial responsibility

of demonstrating the a

bsence of a g enuine issue of materia l fac t. See Celotex C orp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving pa rty may succe ssfully

support its mot ion by identifying those portions of " the pleading s, the discover y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any
a ff ida vit s" wh ic h it

be lie ve s d e mon str ate the a bs e nc e of a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t. F e d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) ; see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. AN AL YSI S I. Ra hm an' s C hal le nge s t o t he Bas u Se tt le m e ntAg r e e m e nt Rahman cha lleng es the EEO C's a pproval of the Ba su class settlement agree ment. He alleg es that the EEO C's " approva l of the settlement agree ment, including the class def inition . . . violates Title VI Iand the Equa l Protection Clause." Rahman I , 501 F. Supp. 2d at 17 (cha rac terizing Rahman' s complaint); see a lso Rahman I I , 575 F. Supp. 2d at 134 (" Indeed, theIn sever al letters se nt to Rahman in 2004 and 2005, USDA took the position that 3 Rahma n w a s in de e d a

me mbe r o f t

he B a su se ttl e me nt c la ss, a lth ou g h it no w c onte nd s th is position was incorre ct. See De f.' s J an. 22, 2009 Mem., Exhibit16 (" You have been ide ntified as fallingwithin . . . the proposed Settlement Ag ree ment.") ; Ex hibit 31, at 1 (same); Exhibit36 (s i m i l ar ). US DA 's ea rl i er p o s i t i o n , h o we v er , i s i rr el ev an tt o th e C o urt 's re v i ew o f t h e E E OC 's approva l of the settlement. -5- crux of plaintiff' s challeng e to the B asu settlement is that limit ing the class to ' curr ent' USDA
emp l o y ee s i s un fa i r. ") ; C o mp l
. at2 -6
. Ins h o rt , R ah m an as k s th i s C o urtt o re v i ew th e E E OC 's approva l of the B asu settlement -- just as a cour t of appe als would normally evaluate a district
c ourt ' s a pp ro va l of

a c la ss s e ttl e me nt. Th e Court

may on ly re vie w the se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt, ho we ve r, if Rahma n h a s st and ingto bringhis claim. See L

ujan v. Def

ender s of Wildl ife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (" [T] he cor e component of standingis an essential a nd unchang ing pa

rt of the c ase- or-c ontroversy require ment of Ar tic le I I I ." ); May fi e ld v . B arr , 9 85 F .2 d 1 09 0, 10 92 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 3) (s tand ingre qu ir e d to
c ha lle ng e c la ss a c tio n s e ttl e me nt) . It is g e ne ra lly the c a se tha

t " no ns e ttl ingpa

rt ie s in mul ti- pa rt y
case s lack standingto object to settlement agree ments on appea l." Ma y field, 985 F .2d at 1092; see
a lso In r e Vi tamin s A nti tr us t Cla ss A c tio ns , 2 15 F .3 d 2 6, 29 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 0) (" ' [T]ho se wh o f ull y prese rve the ir leg al rig hts cannot cha lleng e an or der a pprovingan agree ment resolvingthe leg al rig hts of others.' " ( quoting Ma y field, 985 F .2d at 1093)); In re I nteg ra Rea lty

Res., Inc., 262 F .3d 10 89 , 1 10 2 ( 10 th C ir . 2 00 1) (" No n- se ttl ingde fe nd ants g e ne ra lly have no sta

nd ingto c omp la in about a se ttlement, since they are not members of the settling c lass." ( quotation omitt ed))
. There fore , to demonstrate standingto challeng e the B asu settlement agree ment, Rahman must be a
me mbe r o f t

he B a su c la ss. 3 He is n ot: the pla in l angua g e of the B a su se ttl e me nt e xclu de s Ra

hma n. Th e B a suThe EEO C came to this conclusion as we ll. See id., Ex hibit 29, at 7. The Court need 4 no t de c ide wh e the r t

he a g e nc y ' s d e te rm inatio n s ho uld be a ff or de d d e fe re nc e , h ow e ve r, a s it rea ches the same c onclusion even unde r a de novo revie w. I t may be the c ase, a s Rahman insists, t hat the existi ngBa su settlement is unfair a nd 5 perha ps even unla

wful. B ut such consider ations are irrele vant to the Court' s standing a naly sis. See Agretti, 982 F.2d at 247 (" Nor do we know of a ny case s finding sta

nding f or a non- settling party beca use a se ttlement is alleg edly illega l or ag ainst public policy .")
.

-6- settlement define s the class to include " all curr ent Asian/Pacific I slander e mploy ees at the GS-7 le ve l and a bo ve wh o w e re e lig ibl e fo r b ut h ave no t r e c e ive d p ro mot ion s a nd a ll A sia n/P a c if ic I slander c urre nt employ ees who wer e elig ible for a nd have a pplied for positions with the De pa rtme nt b ut h ave no t be e n s e le c te d. " De f. ' s Jan . 2 2, 20 09 Me m., Exhi bit 9, at 3. I t is undisputed that by

November

14, 2003 -- the da

te the agree ment was sig ned -- Rahman no long er
wo rk e d f or USD A. Se e id. , E xhibi t 41 , at 2, 29 . T hu s, he is n ot a me mbe r o f t

he B a su c la ss. 4 To be sure , e ve n n on -c la ss m e mbe rs , li ke Rahma n, may have sta nd ingto c ha lle ng e a

c la ss action settlement whe n the settlement will "pr ejudice" them. See Mayfield, 985 F .2d at 1093.

"' [P ]rejudice' in this contex t means ' plain leg al pre judice,' as whe n ' the settlement strips the par ty of
a le g a l c la im o r c a

us e of a c tio n. ' " I d. (q

uo tin gAgre tti v. AN R F re ig ht S y s. , 9 82 F .2 d 2 42 , 2 47 (7 th Cir. 1992)). This settlement, howe ver, ha s no impact on Rahman' s individual claims of dis c ri min atio n, wh ic h r e ma in p e nd ingin t his Court . Ra

hma n' s " ' ri g ht t o li tig ate [his ] cl a ims ind e pe nd e ntl y ' " re ma ins " fu lly pr e se rv e d, " and

he the re fo re c ann ot c ha lle ng e the se ttl e me nt a s a non-cla ss member. In re V itamins Antit rust Class Actions, 215 F.3d at 31 ( quoting Ma y field, 985 F.2d at 1093). 5 Ins um , b ec au s e R ah m an i s n o ta m em b er o f t h e B as ucl as s , h e l ac k s s t an d i n g t o ch al l en geT h e C o urtp re v i o u s l y d en i edwi th o u tp re

j u d i ce US DA 's m o t i o nt o d i s m i s s R ah m an 's 6 complaint for lac k of standing . Rahman I I , 575 F. Supp. 2d at 133-34. In doing so, the Court conclude d that "the rec ord cur rently befor e [it] " - - which did not include the settlement ag ree ment itself -- " is, at best, inconclusive a s to whether the settlement agree ment excludes pla int if f. " I d. at 13 3. Th e Court a lso fo un d th at r e so lvi ngthe sta nd ingqu e sti on

at th at ti me "w ould substantially

overla p with the merits issues raised by plaintiff." I d. at 134. The Court now has be fore it sufficient docume ntation conce rningthe B asu agree ment to make a deter mination as to Rahman' s standing. Th e Court

ha s g ra nte d U SDA ' s mo tio n f

or an e xten sio n o f t ime to r e sp on d to the se 7 individual claims pendingresolution of Rahman' s challeng e to the B asu settlement agree ment. See Rahman I I , 575 F. Supp. 2d at 135. -7- the EE OC ' s a

pp ro va l of

the se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt. 6 II. Rahm an's In divid ual Claims of Discrim ination Ha vin gc on c lud e d th at it

la c ks jur isd ic tio n to re vie w R ahma n' s c ha lle ng e s to the B a su settlement agree ment, the Court must decide how to proc eed w ith Rahman' s individual claims of discrimination. USDA does not dispute that Rahman' s individual claims are pr operly befor e the 7 Court. See Def

.' s Mot. for Partial Summ. J . [Docket Entry 50], at 6. Neverthe less, it asks the Court to remand Rahman' s individual claims to the ag ency to allow it to consider his individual claims in the first instance . I d. Rahman objec ts, noting that he ha s exhausted his administ rative r emedies, a nd thus "ha s
ever y rig ht to pursue these c ases in fe dera l district court." Pl.'s Resp. to Def .' s Mem. [Docket Entry 45 ], at 11 -1 2. Th e Court

a g re e s. I t ha s n owbe e n e ig ht ye ars sin c e Rahma n f ir st f ile d h is administrative complaint alleg ing individual cla ims of discrimination, and four year s since he f iled his complaint in feder al district court. The re is little to be g ained through an additional re mand that will, in all li kelihood, simply delay this Court's re view of Rahma n' s leg al claims. The Court will therefor e re quire USDA to a nswer Ra hman' s claims of individual discrimination. Of cour se,-8-

i nth e m ea n t i m e, th er e i s n o th i n g th atp re v en t s US DA fr o mfu rt h er "co n s i d er i n g" R ah m an 's
re ma ini ngc la ims and

dis c us sin gso me re so lut ion wi th h im. CO NC LU SION Upon consider ation of the pa rties' motions, t he par

ties' sever al memora

nda, and the entire
r e c o r d h e r e i n , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D that [50 ] USD A' s mo tio n f or pa rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt i s G RA NT ED ; it is further OR

DE RE D that [57 ] Rahma n' s mo tio n f

or fa ir re lie f i s DE NI ED ; and it is further OR DE RE D that USDA shall answe r or other wise re spond to Rahman' s remaining individual claims of discrimination by not later than January

11, 2010. SO ORDERED.

/ s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Date: De cembe r 14, 2009