From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. White

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Feb 19, 2003
321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003)

Summary

holding that decisions regarding issuance or nonissuance of security clearances are solely within purview of executive branch

Summary of this case from Schmitt v. Department of Navy

Opinion

No. 02-14736. Non-Argument Calendar.

February 19, 2003.

Howell Roger Riggs, Jr., Huntsville, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jenny Lynn Smith, Birmingham, AL, Patrick B. Kernan, U.S. Army, Arlington, VA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. No. 01-01192-CV-S-NE, C. Lynwood Smith, Jr., J.

Before DUBINA, MARCUS and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.


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.

Plaintiff's 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 lack 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.

The district court held that plaintiff's 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 clearance 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.


Summaries of

Hill v. White

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Feb 19, 2003
321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003)

holding that decisions regarding issuance or nonissuance of security clearances are solely within purview of executive branch

Summary of this case from Schmitt v. Department of Navy

finding no jurisdiction to review initiation of security investigation where plaintiff alleged his supervisor "initiated disciplinary proceedings" for charges that "were false and frivolous and motivated by a desire to discriminate" because "[t]o 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"

Summary of this case from Al-Kaysey v. Engility Corp.

explaining that, in reviewing a motion to dismiss, this Court "accept the allegations in the complaint as true and constru[es] them in the light most favorable to the [non-moving party]"

Summary of this case from Page v. Hicks

In Hill, the plaintiff alleged "that his supervisor initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for charges that he sa[id] were false and frivolous and motivated by a desire to discriminate against him because of his age."

Summary of this case from Hambrick v. Esper

In Hill, the Eleventh Circuit also concluded that Egan's holding was not limited to direct review of the denial of a security clearance, but likewise prevented judicial review of the initiation of a security clearance investigation.

Summary of this case from Murphy v. McHugh

In Hill, a civilian employee of the United States Army asserted claims, pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., that he had been denied a security clearance as the result of age discrimination.

Summary of this case from Coppett v. Tenn. Valley Auth.

discussing Becerra

Summary of this case from Rattigan v. Holder

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Williams v. Smith

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Byrne v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Williams v. Smith

stating that the court accepts the allegations in a claim for relief in a pleading as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from State Farm Fire Casualty Company v. Myrick

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Cornelius v. City of Andalusia

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Stolte v. David Davis Farms, Inc.

In Hill, the Eleventh Circuit held that the rule applied in Egan-that security clearance decisions are the province of the Executive Branch — applies equally in the context of a Title VII discrimination action, barring judicial review of the United States Army's initiation of a security clearance investigation.

Summary of this case from Moody v. Gates

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Reed v. Riley

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Hope for Families Community Service, Inc. v. Warren

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Cornelius v. City of Andalusia

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Pittman v. Marshall

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Rudd v. Geneva County Commission

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Bracknell v. Montgomery County Commission

stating that the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Pittman v. Montgomery County Sheriff's Department
Case details for

Hill v. White

Case Details

Full title:Lonnie J. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas E. WHITE, Secretary of the…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Feb 19, 2003

Citations

321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003)

Citing Cases

Hambrick v. Esper

The Secretary argues that the Court must dismiss count two and part of count three of Mr. Hambrick's third…

Paschal v. McHugh

Egan, 484 U.S. at 528-29 (alterations in original). The Eleventh Circuit clarified its position on the…