LONNIE J. HILL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS E. WHITE, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
PER CURIAM: Lonnie J.
Hill, a civilian employee of the United States Army at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, filed suit against the Secretary of the Army seeking front and back pay, damages and attorney fees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791.
He alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his age and that, as a result, he was deprived of his security clearance status at the installation.
The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or alternatively for summary judgment.
The district court granted the motion.
Plaintiff appeals.
We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. • See, Monzon v. U.S., 253 F. 3d 567, 569-70 (11th Cir.2001).
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment.
See, Walker v. Prudential Property & Cas.
Ins.
Co., 286 F. 3d 1270, 1273 (11th Cir.2002).
The plaintiff alleges that his supervisor initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for charges that he says were false and frivolous and motivated by a desire to discriminate against him because of his age.
Plaintiff was suspended for three days pursuant to a final administrative decision.
He was required to undergo a mental evaluation and then his security clearance was suspended.
Plaintiff says he does not challenge the decision to suspend his security clearance.
He challenges instead the initiation of the security clearance investigation, claiming it was improperly motivated by discrimination.
The district court held that plaintiffs challenge is not within the jurisdiction of the courts.
The same challenge was made by a civilian employee of the United States Navy in Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F. 3d 145 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151, 117 S.Ct. 1087, 137 L.Ed.2d 221 (1997).
There the employee claimed the instigation of a security check that led to revocation of his security clearance constituted impermissible retaliation against him for filing an EEOC complaint.
The Fourth Circuit stated: “[the] distinction between the initiation of a security investigation and the denial of a security clear-anee is a distinction without a difference.”
Id. at 149.
We agree.
The United States Supreme Court has made clear that a decision concerning the issuance or non-issuance of security clearance is a matter within the purview of the executive and not to be second-guessed by the judiciary unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise.
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 108 S.Ct. 818, 98 L.Ed.2d 918 (1988).
To review the initial stages of a security clearance determination is to review the basis of the determination itself regardless of how the issue is characterized.
The district court properly identified and decided the issue in this case.
AFFIRMED. .
Plaintiffs complaint also alleges the Defendant engaged in reprisal because plaintiff was denied a civilian personnel appraisal and that he was not assigned work because of his age.
The district court dismissed these claims for laclc of jurisdiction on grounds that the plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies.
The plaintiff does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of these claims and they are not presently before us.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (176 total)
-
Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004)…ky defendants. II. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hill v. White, 321 F. 3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam); see also Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 309 F. 3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir.2002) (citing Stephens v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 901 F. 2d 1571, 1573 (11th Cir.1990)) (“On a motion to dismiss, the facts state…
-
Adem A. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007)…Advan, constitute “employers” under the ADA and the FOAA, and the district court thus erred in dismissing his complaint against them. A district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Hill v. White, 321 F. 3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir.2003). Questions of law, such as the construction of a statute, are also reviewed de novo. Konikov v. Orange County, Fla., 410 F. 3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.2005). 1. ADA Claims The ADA prohibits disability discrimination in three ar…
-
Jamaal Ali Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903 (11th Cir. 2020)…im in Section B. A. We review de novo the district court's dismissal of a case for failure to state a claim. Speaker v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 2010); Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). As we have mentioned, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we "accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them 7 We thank Attorney Valarie Linnen for accepting the appointment and capably dischar…
Previewing 3 of 176 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1988)
- Walker v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 286 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Emiliano Monzon v. United States, 253 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Poly-Tech Indus., Inc. v. Insty*Bit, Inc., 519 U.S. 1151 (U.S. 1997)
- Larry v. Phillips, 519 U.S. 1151 (U.S. 1997)