Roe v. United States

510 F.Supp.3d 336

Jane ROE, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES of America; Judicial Conference of the United States; United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit; The Hon. Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources; Administrative Office of the United States Courts; James C. Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; Sheryl L. Walter, in her individual capacity; John Doe(s), c/o Office of the General Counsel for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, The Hon. Roger L. Gregory, Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit; James N. Ishida, Circuit Executive of the Fourth Circuit and as Secretary of the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit; Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-00066-WGY

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, (Asheville).

Filed December 30, 2020

Cooper J. Strickland, Law Office of Cooper Strickland, Lynn, NC, for Plaintiff.

Gill Paul Beck, Sr., Caroline B. McLean, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Shannon Sumerell Spainhour, Davis Hartman Wright PLLC, Asheville, NC, Rachael Lynn Westmoreland, Joshua Michael Kolsky, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants United States of America, Judicial Conference of the United States, Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, James C. Duff, Sheryl L. Walter, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit, Roger L. Gregory, James N. Ishida, Federal Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina.

Rachael Lynn Westmoreland, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant John Doe(s).

Gill Paul Beck, Sr., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Shannon Sumerell Spainhour, Davis Hartman Wright PLLC, Asheville, NC, Rachael Lynn Westmoreland, Joshua Michael Kolsky, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant Anthony Martinez.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

YOUNG, D.J.¹

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2018, Jane Roe ("Roe") filed two employment dispute claims alleging sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under the Consolidated Equal Employment Opportunity and Employment Dispute Resolution Plan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ("EDR Plan"). Compl. ¶¶ 274-278, ECF No. 1. Roe's present action alleges four counts against individuals and entities who participated in the resolution of her claims under the EDR Plan, violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (Count I), violation of the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause (Count II), conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Count III), and neglect to prevent conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (Count IV). Id. ¶¶ 494-505.

Roe sues Sheryl L. Walter, General Counsel for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Honorable Roger L. Gregory, Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit, James N. Ishida, Circuit Executive of the Fourth Circuit and Secretary of the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit, and Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina, in their individual capacities ("Individual Capacity Defendants"). Id. ¶¶ 23-35. Roe also sues the following individuals and entities in their official capacities: the United States of America, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Honorable Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, James C. Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, John Doe(s) c/o Office of the General Counsel for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit, and Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina ("Official Capacity Defendants").² Id. Roe does not sue her alleged harasser in this action. See id.

The Individual Capacity Defendants and Official Capacity Defendants move to dismiss all counts. This Court GRANTS the Official Capacity Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 42, because sovereign immunity shields them from suit. This Court GRANTS the Individual Capacity Defendants’ motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 36, 38, 40, 44, because Roe fails to allege cognizable claims against them.

A. Factual Background

Roe alleges that while working as a research and writing attorney for a federal public defender's office, the First Assistant to the Public Defender made her uncomfortable with unwelcomed interest in her personal and professional life, his insistence that he mentor Roe and drive her home, his leaving the office at the same time as her, and his alleged retaliation against her when she did not entertain his interest. Compl. ¶¶ 63-109. This proved particularly precarious because Roe sought trial experience, and the First Assistant managed the entire trial unit. Id. ¶ 52.

On July 2, 2018, Roe contacted the Public Defender to tell him that she would set boundaries with the First Assistant. Id. ¶ 124. The Public Defender asked Roe whether she was experiencing " ‘sexual harassment’ " and Roe told the Public Defender that she was "not using those words yet." Id. ¶ 125. She emphasized that she was notifying the Public Defender of the First Assistant's behavior and that "she would not have involved [the Public Defender] if it was not absolutely necessary." Id.

Later that day, Roe met with the First Assistant to set boundaries. Id. ¶¶ 127, 129. This conversation did not go well; the First Assistant ended up "berating" Roe. Id. ¶¶ 127-133. Roe notified the Public Defender that the First Assistant "might say something about her," and she asked the Public Defender to withhold judgment until he spoke to Roe again. Id. ¶ 133. Three days later, on July 5, 2018, the Public Defender called the First Assistant and Roe into his office to discuss what had happened. Id. ¶ 135. Roe stated that she was uncomfortable and would not participate without first speaking to the Public Defender alone. Id. ¶ 136. Roe then met with the Public Defender alone, whose comments, methods, and decisions she found dismissive and injurious. Id. ¶¶ 136-156. One such decision was to assign Roe to a different team that nevertheless reported directly to the First Assistant. Id. ¶ 150.

On July 23, 2018, Roe took leave and sought guidance from an Administrative Office Fair Employment Opportunity Officer, who told Roe about the EDR Plan. Id. ¶¶ 157-162; Def. Chief Judge's Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, Ex. A ("EDR Plan"), ECF No. 41. The Officer opined that the "cards were ‘stacked’ against Roe and in favor of management" and that it might "be less risky for her personally if she looked for another job." Id. ¶ 161.

The next day, the Public Defender called Roe, admitted that he should not have assigned her to a team under the First Assistant's supervision, and said that he had made the decision when he was " ‘tired.’ " Id. ¶ 163. On July 26, 2018, the Public Defender changed the assignments so that Roe would receive assignments from another research and writing attorney, but Roe was unhappy because she would not receive her own cases and would have to report to someone else. Id. ¶¶ 165-166. Roe also alleges that this is the first time the Public Defender distributed the employee manual, which included an updated organizational chart requiring research and writing attorneys to report directly to the First Assistant. Id. ¶ 167.

When Roe spoke with the Appellate Chief about a new appellate attorney position on July 27, 2018, the Appellate Chief discouraged her from applying. Id. ¶ 170. Roe was disappointed because the Appellate Chief previously had expressed interest in helping Roe gain appellate litigation experience. Id.

Eventually, the Public Defender moved Roe's office workspace away from the First Defendant, but still she did not feel safe. Id. ¶ 174. Roe alleges that people in the office were " ‘keep[ing] tabs’ " on her for the First Assistant. Id. ¶ 179. Roe further asserts that the Administrative Office Fair Employment Opportunity Officer shared the First Assistant's allegedly harassing text messages and emails with the Chief of Defender Services, who contacted the Deputy Director, who in turn authorized the Chief of Defender Services to contact the Public Defender directly. Id. ¶¶ 184-188.

On August 9, 2018, the Public Defender told Roe that he believed that he had already taken care of the situation, that Roe had explicitly declined to use the words "sexual harassment" when he asked her whether she was being sexually harassed, and that he was frustrated with Roe for going to another party in the judiciary with her complaints. Id. ¶¶ 195-199. The Public Defender and Roe then had an exchange about the differences between her allegations, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, and this offended Roe because it seemed to trivialize her allegations. Id. ¶¶ 201-204. The Public Defender asked Roe what she wanted, and she said that she wanted "to do her job without being harassed or threatened" and that she wanted to be an assistant public defender working exclusively on appeals. Id. ¶ 205. The Public Defender agreed that this made sense because the First Assistant supervised the trial unit. Id. The Public Defender did not agree, however, to transfer Roe to a new duty station. Id. ¶ 209.

Via email on August 10, 2018, Roe contacted the Public Defender "to confirm the terms of their agreement in writing" and "requested to work remotely pending his transfer decision, citing the First Assistant's sexually harassing and threatening behaviors towards her." Id. ¶ 211.

The following week, the Public Defender emailed Roe with the Circuit Executive and a human resources ("HR") specialist copied on the email. Id. ¶ 213. The email informed Roe that she was to...