Opinion ID: 506278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 Saul worked as a Claims Representative for the Social Security Administration (SSA) and volunteered as a union representative. Larsen was an SSA Area Director. His responsibilities included hearing grievances under the collective bargaining agreement and maintaining relations with outside organizations and institutions. St. Louis was an SSA Operations Supervisor. It was her responsibility to monitor the performance of SSA employees and maintain work flow in her unit. She supervised Saul. 4 In 1985, Saul filed a grievance concerning an SSA policy that required him to take vacation leave when he took time from his SSA job to work as a union representative. Larsen heard Saul's grievance and wrote to the Union explaining his decision. Saul claims that Larsen defamed him in this letter. 5 After Saul filed his grievance, he wrote to a Congressman to complain about SSA union policies. Larsen learned of the letter and called an aide in the Congressman's office to explain the agency's position. He disclosed to the aide that Saul's work performance was poor, that he filed many complaints against SSA, and that two SSA personnel libraries refused him access. Saul claims that these statements also defamed him. 6 Saul's difficulties with St. Louis are based on her responsibilities for supervising and monitoring incoming mail and for monitoring workers' overtime hours. He alleged that St. Louis opened his mail in violation of agency policies and that her conduct was an invasion of privacy. St. Louis claims that she acted under a long standing policy and within her duties as Operations Supervisor. 7 Saul complains also that St. Louis prohibited him from working at his desk before and after hours and did this to harass him. She claims that she acted within her authority to ensure that overtime hours were authorized. 8 Saul sued in state court under theories of common law tort defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. He sought $50,000 damages for loss of ... reputation, shame, mortification, humiliation, emotional distress and hurt feelings, and $200,000 in exemplary and punitive damages. He also made out claims that Larsen violated his liberty interest in his reputation and that St. Louis violated his right of privacy in his mail, both of which he claimed were protected by the federal constitution. 9 Larsen and St. Louis removed the case under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442 (federal officers may remove to federal court pending state court action in which officer is defendant). Several weeks later, Saul's attorneys requested that Larsen and St. Louis produce certain discovery items within one month. They failed to respond within the month. Rather, 12 days after the one month deadline, their attorney moved to quash or stay the request and moved for summary judgment. 10 The court granted summary judgment of dismissal, concluding that as federal officers, Larsen and St. Louis were immune to state and constitutional tort claims arising from actions taken pursuant to official duties. Because the court decided the claims on summary judgment, it granted the motion to quash concluding that further discovery was not appropriate. Saul appeals.