Smith v. U.S. & Bureau of Alcohol
| Decision Date | 07 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-CV-33-NJR-PMF |
| Parties | JANEL N. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Currently before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by the United States of America ("the United States") and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") (Docs. 15, 16). Smith responded to both motions (Docs. 17, 18); neither the United States nor the ATF filed a reply brief. After carefully considering the parties' submissions, and for the reasons explained below, the motions are granted.
The allegations in the pro se amended complaint regarding the course of events giving rise to this lawsuit are quite murky. The Court has done its best to piece together the background based on the allegations in the amended complaint (Doc. 3), the facts presented by the United States in its motion to dismiss (Doc. 16), and the information provided by Smith in her response (Doc. 18).
Plaintiff Janel Smith is an African-American woman who works as an investigatory analyst for the ATF in Fairview Heights, Illinois. Smith claims that one of her co-workers, Frances Bruce, acted unprofessionally towards her and made inappropriate racial comments to her (see Doc. 16, p. 2). Smith reported the incidents to her supervisor, Lisa Storey, but Smith claims Storey failed to take any action (see Doc. 16, p. 2; Doc. 3). Consequently, Smith notified ATF management in September 2010 that she intended to file a complaint (Doc. 3). Smith purportedly filed a complaint with the EEOC (presumably an informal complaint) and the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") that same month (Doc. 16, p. 2).1 The following month, Smith received an overall "less than favorable" annual performance appraisal (Doc. 16, p. 2).
Smith claims that in December 2010, she participated in some type of dispute resolution or hearing, during which she made "[w]histleblower protected disclosures" against Storey (Doc. 3; see also Doc. 16, p. 2). Specifically, she claims she told high-level ATF officials that Storey falsified reports, drank during duty hours, and accepted gifts from an investigator in the office (Doc. 16, p. 2). Apparently unable to settle the dispute during the dispute resolution process, Smith filed her formal complaint for racial discrimination with the EEOC in January 2011, essentially alleging that she received the negative performance review in retaliation for filing the informal EEOC complaint and the OIG complaint (Doc. 16, p. 2).
Smith claims that the harassment continued after she filed her complaints (Doc.3). According to Smith, Storey made "demeaning and intimidate[ing] threats," such as telling Smith that the Department of Justice was tracking her, that she would go bankrupt if she sued the ATF, that she would lose any fight she waged against a government agency, and that federal employees who file complaints are "blacklisted" (Doc. 3). And in December 2011—before responding to the EEOC's discovery request regarding Smith's complaint—Storey changed the hard-drive in her computer (Doc. 3). There was also an alleged incident of workplace violence when Bruce intentionally hit Smith with stacks of paper in June 2013 (Doc. 3).
Smith alleges that a number of superiors within the ATF and government employees outside of the ATF were informed of or knew about the harassment she suffered from Storey and Bruce, but they turned a blind eye to it (Doc. 3). According to Smith, the ATF has "an unfortunate and publicized reputation and history" of ignoring its employees' complaints of workplace harassment and permitting others to harass and retaliate against those employees in an effort to silence them or cover-up their complaints (Doc. 3).
As for Smith's EEOC complaint, she elected a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve the complaint (Doc. 16). On November 8, 2013, the Administrative Judge issued a decision in the agency's favor, finding no discrimination (Doc. 16). The decision became final on December 20, 2013 (see Doc. 16; Doc. 25-1). Smith appealed to the Office of Federal Operations, who ruled against Smith and affirmed the ATF's final decision on April 28, 2016 (Doc. 25-1).
While her EEOC complaint was pending, Smith filed an Individual Right ofAction appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") on February 22, 2013, in which she alleged whistleblower retaliation for making various protected disclosures to agency officials (Doc. 16). Specifically, Smith alleged she was subjected to a change in duties; disparate treatment; a hostile work environment; and a lower performance rating as retaliation for making the previously mentioned protected disclosures against Storey (Doc. 16). This matter was heard before an Administrative Judge on April 9, 2015, with apparently no ruling to date (Doc. 16).
Smith also filed an administrative claim under the FTCA using a Standard Form 95 on March 11, 2014 (Doc. 16-1). She alleged that on June 5, 2013, at 9:53 a.m., her co-worker, Frances Bruce, threw papers at her and on her (Doc. 16-1). Smith further alleged that she reported the incident to Storey, but Storey used her position to intimidate Smith in an effort to deter/silence her (Doc. 16-1). Smith generally alleged that "ignoring the misconduct has ranged from allowed verbal intimidations, to denying [Smith] mandated/allowed (EEO Appeal) leave time, to elevated physical contact" (Doc. 16-1). Smith further alleged that these incidents were never investigated or addressed. ATF denied the claim by letter dated June 3, 2014 (Doc. 16).
On December 3, 2014, Smith filed her pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking monetary damages against the United States for "negligent, wrongful acts, and omissions" that were committed against her by government employees during the course of her employment (Doc. 1). The District of Columbia District Court determined that the Southern District of Illinois was the proper venue for Smith's case, and it was transferred here (Doc. 2). Smith then amended hercomplaint to add the ATF as a Defendant (Doc. 3). The United States and the ATF responded to the complaint by filing the motions to dismiss that are presently before the Court (Docs. 15, 16).
Before proceeding with the substantive analysis of the motions to dismiss, the Court finds it necessary to address the nature of the claims presented in the amended complaint. The amended complaint is not a model of clarity, and it is difficult to discern exactly what claims Smith intended to bring. For example, the amended complaint is titled "Complaint for Damages Under the Federal Tort Claims Act," and it indicates that "the claims herein are brought . . . pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act . . . " (Doc. 3, p. 1). But then it goes on to allege that Defendants violated the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), 18 U.S.C § 2701, more than one ATF Order, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (Doc. 3).
Defendants construed the amended complaint as though all of Smith's claims were brought under the FTCA, as opposed to any independent and stand-alone claims separate and apart from the FTCA (see Doc. 15; Doc. 16, pp. 4-5). At this point, the Court also believes that Smith intended to raise only FTCA claims. To the extent that Smith intended to assert claims independent of the FTCA, such as a claim under Title VII or a Bivens claim, she will be allowed to amend her complaint to do so.
For the sake of clarity and convenience, the Court will refer to Smith's claims as follows:
The ATF seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim (Doc. 15). The United States seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a...
To continue reading
Request your trial