Scotty Lee White sued Paul Hopkins, Ashley Lepold, Dane Roper, Angela Athmann, Chandra Miller, and John Taylor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants moved to dismiss White’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6), and White moved to amend his complaint to add claims under the Fifth Amendment and Titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Factual Overview
White, a former employee at the Department of Veterans Affairs’ John J. Pershing facility, alleged that he was exposed to mold while conducting his official duties and was injured by that exposure. He further alleged that he reported the mold hazards and that defendants retaliated against him in various ways for doing so, including by locking his work computer and making false allegations about his behavior, some of which continued after his employment ceased.
Legal Analysis
Federal Tort Claims Act: The court dismissed White’s FTCA claim, finding that it was preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), and the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA). The court also found that White failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for his post-employment retaliation claim and that his claim for injuries related to mold exposure was barred by the statute of limitations.
Fifth Amendment Claim: The court denied White’s motion to amend his complaint to add a Fifth Amendment claim, finding that it was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and that the court lacked jurisdiction over such a claim.
Fourteenth Amendment Claim: The court dismissed White’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, finding that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to actions by federal officers.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 Claims: The court denied White’s motion to amend his complaint to add claims under Titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, finding that he failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The court also dismissed White’s Title VII claim, finding that he did not allege that he was harmed because of any protected characteristics under the statute.
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing White’s FTCA claim regarding post-employment retaliation without prejudice and dismissing all other claims with prejudice. The court also denied White’s motion to amend his complaint.
Schrag on Law 