Stevens v. Holder

• Decision Date: 16 August 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:12–cv–1105 (GBL/IDD).
• Citation: 966 F.Supp.2d 622
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: Robert J. STEVENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants.

966 F.Supp.2d 622

Robert J. STEVENS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:12–cv–1105 (GBL/IDD).

United States District Court,

E.D. Virginia,

Alexandria Division.

Aug. 16, 2013.

Jacob Madison Small, John Thomas Spiggle, The Spiggle Law Firm PLLC, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiffs.

David Moskowitz, Stephen Obermeier, U.S. Attorney's Office, Alexandria, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GERALD BRUCE LEE, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 37, 38.) This case concerns claims by two former Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) trainees who were terminated from the FBI Academy. Plaintiffs allege their termination from the FBI Academy resulted from violations of their constitutional rights of privacy and due process, and also allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) resulting from non-compensation for certain work-related tasks.

Defendant's Motions present three issues. The first issue is whether the Government violated Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights in that the FBI's decision to terminate Plaintiffs after learning of their relationship violated a Fifth Amendment right to engage in a personal romantic relationship with one another at work. The second issue is whether Plaintiffs state an equal protection claim on the grounds that the FBI terminated Plaintiffs for conduct code violations yet treated differently other trainees who violated conduct regulations. The third issue is whether Plaintiffs state a claim pursuant to the FLSA by alleging that the FBI refused to compensate Plaintiffs for certain tasks performed during their time at the FBI Academy.

The Court grants Defendant's Motions for three reasons. First, the Fifth Amendment does not provide a fundamental right to engage in a non-marital, non-familial, non-sexual personal relationship, thus the Government's rules affecting personal relationship conduct on government property does not violate substantive due process. Second, Plaintiffs fail to plead sufficient facts demonstrating that other individuals in receipt of different treatment were similarly situated, resulting in an equal protection violation. Furthermore, Plaintiffs fail to plead facts demonstrating that any differential treatment was not justified, in light of the fact that the Government may promulgate rules limiting or proscribing employee conduct. Third, Plaintiffs' FLSA claim fails because the tasks at issue were not either “productive work” nor assignments regularly scheduled in advance of the administrative workweek, requirements for FLSA violations in the context of entry-level employees.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Robert Stephens and Katherine Hayek bring this action against Eric Holder, Jr. in his official capacity as Attorney General, concerning a series of events occurring while the Plaintiffs were FBI trainees. Plaintiffs entered the FBI New Agent Training (“NAT”) program in Quantico, Virginia on July 17, 2011. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19–20, Doc. 32.) Special Agent (SA) Michael Robinson and Special Supervisory Agent (SSA) Derrick Edmond conducted orientation for the New Agent Class (NAC), during which time the traineescompleted personnel documents. ( Id. ¶¶ 21–22.)

At the time they entered the FBI Academy, Plaintiffs were married, yet separated from their respective spouses. On August 10, 2010, Mr. Stevens separated from his wife, although the divorce was not final until December 31, 2011. ( Id. ¶ 17.) Ms. Hayek separated from her husband on July 15, 2011, with their divorce becoming finalized on October 4, 2011. ( Id. ¶ 18.) The parties were terminated from the FBI Academy in September 2011. Plaintiffs were legally married, yet separated, during the time period relevant to their claims.

Plaintiffs became acquainted on July 29, 2011 and developed a romantic relationship. ( Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs did not hide their relationship, believing it was not unlawful or inconsistent with FBI policy. ( Id. ¶ 26.) During their time as NATs, Plaintiffs resided in dormitories on FBI property. ( Id. ¶ 27.) On September 16, 2011, SA Robinson and SA Christine O'Neil searched Ms. Hayek's dorm room, and the ensuing report reported finding men's jeans and deodorant in Ms. Hayek's room. ( Id. ¶¶ 31–32.) The report also indicated that SA Robinson and SA O'Neil reported their findings to SSA Edmond. ( Id. ¶ 33.)

Plaintiffs allege that in late September, the FBI interviewed Plaintiffs and other trainees about Plaintiffs' relationship. ( Id. ¶ 34.) SSA Edmond, joined by SSA Thomas Bailey, SSA Steven Hayes, and SA Robinson, held separate interviews with Plaintiffs to determine whether Plaintiffs violated the honor code by cheating on exams. ( Id. ¶¶ 35–36.) In each meeting, the questions would eventually shift from the exams to Plaintiffs' relationship. ( Id. ¶¶ 37–40.) In discussing Plaintiffs' relationship, SSA Edmond allegedly approached the subject of Plaintiffs' marital status and told Mr. Stevens to do some soul searching. ( Id. ¶¶ 40–41.)

In a second meeting with Mr. Stevens the following day, September 27, 2011, SSA Edmond cleared Mr. Stevens of the honor code violation charge, but further inquired as to the nature of Plaintiffs' relationship. ( Id. ¶¶ 43–46.) The same day, a similar interaction occurred between SSA Edmond and Ms. Hayek. ( Id. ¶ 47.) SSA Edmond expressed his disapproval for extramarital affairs, allegedly telling Ms. Hayek that Plaintiffs' relationship was a “poor choice.” ( Id. ¶¶ 48–49.) Later that evening, SSA Edmond met with Plaintiffs individually to inform then that the FBI would conduct a “Suitability Review” to determine Plaintiffs' fitness for duty as FBI agents. ( Id. ¶ 51.) Plaintiffs received a “Counseling Statement” alleging that they violated curfew, and lacked integrity and good judgment in entering into a personal relationship. ( Id. ¶ 53.) SSA Edmond subsequently conducted interviews with other trainees on the topic of Plaintiffs' relationship. ( Id. ¶¶ 54–57.)

Plaintiffs allege SSA Edmond used the curfew violations as pretext for terminating Plaintiffs for their relationship. ( Id. ¶ 60.) SSA Edmond, SA Robinson, and Acting Unit Chief (AUC) Melinda Casey informed Mr. Stevens that they completed the Suitability Review and found him unsuitable for duty. ( Id. ¶ 60.) AUC Casey indicated to Mr. Stevens that he was terminated for more than just a curfew violation; Plaintiffs allege that she implied that real reason was the relationship with Ms. Hayek.¹ ( Id. ¶ 64.) Ms. Hayek was terminated the same day for a curfew violation. ( Id. ¶ 66.) When Ms. Hayek protested the finding that she broke curfew, AUC Casey replied that Ms. Hayek was terminated for allowing Mr. Stevens to break curfew. ( Id. ¶¶ 67–68.) A written “Counseling Record,” summarizing the FBI's Suitability Review, stated that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate three “suitability dimensions”: emotional maturity, integrity, and judgment. ( Id. ¶ 69.) Plaintiffs allege that these infractions arose from their personal relationship, not the curfew violation. ( Id.) Mr. Stevens's formal termination form, dated September 30, 2011, noted that Mr. Stevens also failed the suitability requirement for “conscientiousness.” ( Id. ¶ 70.)

On September 30, 2011,² an unknown individual allegedly sent letters to Plaintiffs' respective estranged spouses disclosing Plaintiffs' sexual relationship at the FBI Academy. ( Id. ¶¶ 86–88.) Purportedly sent by a concerned NAT at the FBI Academy, the letters informing Plaintiffs' estranged spouses that Plaintiffs were violating a strict rule prohibiting sexual relations on government property and were “sleep[ing] together almost every night.” ( Id. ¶¶ 89–92.) The letters further stated that Plaintiffs violated rules concerning sex on government property and violated the pillars of the FBI. ( Id. ¶¶ 93–94.) Plaintiffs dispute the truth of the letters' contents. ( See id. ¶¶ 92–96.)

Plaintiffs claim that their termination on suitability grounds has damaged their ability to find other meaningful employment opportunities. ( Id. ¶ 100.) Mr. Stevens is allegedly underemployed now, having previously been unemployed for eleven months after leaving the FBI Academy, as a result of the FBI dismissal and having to disclose the circumstances surrounding his termination. ( Id. ¶¶ 101–03.) Two potential employers informed Ms. Hayek that she was denied employment solely because of her termination from the FBI. ( Id. ¶ 104.) However, she is now employed with the Defense Contract Audit Agency, a hire that was delayed while the agency consulted the FBI regarding her termination. ( Id. ¶¶ 105–06.) Plaintiffs allege that they both seek work in fields where potential employers will likely to use the FBI Suitability Review to make their own security-clearance decisions, thus creating a unique harm by the FBI's decision. ( Id. ¶ 107.) Plaintiffs further maintain that the poison-pen letters caused them harm during their respective divorce proceedings through a loss of bargaining power. ( Id. ¶ 108.)

Unrelated to Plaintiffs' personal relationship and subsequent termination, Plaintiffs further alleged that they were eligible for and entitled to overtime compensation that they did not receive while training at the FBI Academy. ( Id. ¶ 109.) The NATs received a take-home exam on Friday, September 16, 2011, to complete during the ensuing weekend. ( Id. ¶ 110.) Plaintiffs allege that their supervisors intentionally extended deadlines to Tuesday to fall within FSLA requirements, but kept Plaintiffs fully occupied during the workday with other assignments so that Plaintiffs effectively could not complete the assignment during working hours. ( Id. ¶¶ 114–16.) Plaintiffs also allege that the NATs were regularly required to spend an extra hour cleaning and preparing gym equipment three days per...