Williams v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.

Jeffrey Williams, Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Education, Defendant.

Civil Action H-19-5053

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

March 30, 2021

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Jeffrey Williams filed suit against the United States Department of Education¹ under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Williams asserts that Defendant failed to comply with governing regulations and a Department of Education procedure manual in its adjudication of a discrimination complaint he filed. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, and the district judge transferred the case to the undersigned for all further proceedings, including entry of final judgment. (D.E. 14, 15.) Pending before the court is Defendant's motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (D.E. 22.) The motion is GRANTED.

1. Background and Procedural Posture

This litigation stems from the investigation of a civil rights complaint. (D.E. 21 ¶ 60.) Williams alleges that in 2009 he was unlawfully dismissed from a post-graduate program in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Age Discrimination Act). Id. ¶ 1. According to Williams, he was one of four students placed on academic probation in December 2008 but was the only student who was ultimately dismissed from the program in August 2009. Id. ¶¶ 26, 31.

Williams filed a complaint against the school with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) asserting that he was treated differently from similarly situated female students. (D.E. 21 ¶ 60.) He filed administrative complaints against OCR alleging that OCR improperly adjudicated his complaint against the school. Id. ¶¶ 81, 95. He also filed an earlier federal lawsuit that he dismissed. Id. ¶ 84. A timeline of relevant events is helpful.

• September 2009—Williams filed his discrimination complaint against the school with OCR. (D.E. 21 ¶ 60.)

• April 15, 2010—OCR issued a determination letter informing Williams it found insufficient evidence of discrimination against him. (D.E. 21 ¶ 67; D.E. 26-2.)

• September 2010—Williams appealed the findings detailed in OCR's April 2010 determination letter. (D.E. 21 ¶ 72.)

• August 2012—Williams presented his first administrative claim to OCR, seeking adjudication of his September 2010 appeal of OCR's investigative findings and determination. (D.E. 21 ¶ 81; D.E. 23-2.)

• August 31, 2012—OCR denied Williams's first administrative claim. (D.E. 21 ¶ 82; D.E. 23-3.)

• October 2012—Williams filed a complaint against the United States Department of Education in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 84-85; D.E. 23-4.)

• February 27, 2013—OCR issued a denial letter, which denied Williams's September 2010 appeal of OCR's investigative findings and determination. (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 88, 92-93; D.E. 23-5 at 7.)

• May 24, 2013—The District of Massachusetts granted Williams's motion to voluntarily dismiss his federal complaint. (D.E. 23-4.)

• February 18, 2015—Williams presented his second administrative claim to OCR, alleging that OCR employees intentionally violated numerous federal statutes. (D.E. 21 ¶ 95; D.E. 23-5 at 2-4.)

• May 7, 2019—OCR denied Williams's second administrative claim. (D.E. 21 ¶ 97; D.E. 23-6.)

• December 3, 2019—Williams filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (D.E. 1.)

A. OCR Investigation and Decision

In his September 2009 OCR complaint, Williams alleged that school administrators intentionally altered his school transcript, miscalculated his grades, lied about their own conduct, and failed to follow school policies. (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 59, 61, 63-66.) He provided investigators with evidence that he believes unequivocally established his claims including his own calculations of his grades and "voice excerpts" of conversations he had with school administrators. Id. ¶¶ 65-66.

On April 15, 2010, OCR issued a "letter of finding" informing Williams that it completed its investigation of his complaint. (D.E. 21 ¶ 67; D.E. 26-2 at 2-8.) The letter states that OCR interviewed Williams, school representatives, and people that Williams recommended OCR interview "whom [they] were successful in contacting." (D.E. 26-2 at 2.) OCR also reviewed documents submitted by Williamsand by the school, including the college's policies and procedures. Id. at 3-6. OCR identified potential comparators but determined that they were not similarly situated to Williams because they were at different stages of the program and thus different procedures applied to them under school policy. Id. at 6-7. The letter also described OCR's review of statistical information about the school and OCR's determination that it "could not infer a pattern or other indication of different treatment based on sex or age." Id. at 7. Following the discussion of the investigation, the letter explained that it "found insufficient evidence" of discrimination under Title IX and the Age Discrimination Act and closed the complaint. Id. at 7-8. The letter described how to submit a reconsideration request. Id. at 8.

B. Appeal and First Administrative Complaint

Before Williams filed for reconsideration of OCR's decision, he requested the agency's internal notations on the investigation under the Freedom of Information Act. (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 68, 71.) Williams received responsive documents. Id. ¶¶ 70, 74. In his federal complaint, he describes the response as missing certain documents and containing "documents directly refuting written and oral testimony given by senior college administrators and their legal representatives." Id. ¶ 74. Armed with this information, Williams appealed OCR's April 15, 2010 denial of his discrimination claim. Id. ¶ 72. According to Williams's federal complaint, his appeal consisted of "more than 200 pages" and identified "more than a dozen analytical errors, plus anaudio recording proving that college senior staff had made numerous prevarications in their sworn testimony." (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 72, 107; D.E. 26 at 19.) Seven months later, Williams contacted OCR to follow up on his appeal. (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 76-77.) An OCR employee told him that the appeal would be read "cover-to-cover" before a decision was made. Id. ¶ 76. After two years, Williams filed an administrative complaint seeking prompt adjudication of his September 2010 appeal of OCR's investigative findings and determination. (D.E. 21 ¶ 81; D.E. 23-2.) The administrative complaint was denied. (D.E. 21 ¶ 82; D.E. 23-3.) Six months later, OCR denied Williams's September 2010 appeal of OCR's investigative findings and determination. (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 88, 92-93; D.E. 23-5 at 7.) The letter denying his appeal, signed "Debbie Osgood for Sandra Battle,"² states in part:

After careful consideration of your appeal, I find that OCR Boston's determination to close your case was consistent with the laws and regulations enforced by OCR. Accordingly, your appeal is denied. This concludes OCR's consideration of your appeals and is the final agency determination.

(D.E. 23-5 at 7.)

C. Second Administrative Complaint

Two years after OCR issued the February 27, 2013 denial of Williams's appeal, on February 18, 2015, Williams filed a second administrative complaint.(D.E. 21 ¶ 95; D.E. 23-5 at 2-4.) In it, he alleged that OCR employees "intentionally falsif[ied] the facts and/or finding of the case" and "unlawfully" closed his appeal in violation of civil and criminal statutes and OCR policy. (D.E. 23-5 at 2-3.) He demanded payment of $2,980,000 in lost wages, the resignation of specific agency employees, and the commencement of a federal criminal investigation into the conduct of the agency employees, employees of his post-graduate program, and their legal counsel. Id. at 3.

Four years later, on May 7, 2019, the Department of Education determined that Williams's administrative claims arose "from the Department's exercise of its authority under laws and regulations enforced by [OCR]." (D.E. 21 ¶ 97; D.E. 23-6.) It denied Williams's second administrative complaint based on the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Id.

D. Federal Lawsuit

Williams filed his federal lawsuit against the Department of Education under the FTCA almost seven months later. (D.E. 1.) In his second amended complaint, Williams asserts that government employees failed to exercise due care while investigating and adjudicating his 2009 discrimination complaint and subsequent appeal of OCR's investigative findings and determination. He argues that theirconduct violated sections of OCR's Case Processing Manual (CPM).³ Specifically, Williams argues that:

• Under CPM § 110, OCR was not justified in closing his appeal (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 109-10, 117);

• OCR failed to explain the reason his appeal was closed in violation of CPM § 111 (D.E. 21 ¶ 134);

• OCR's denial letter was not signed by the Chief Attorney or their designee in violation of CPM § 111 (D.E. 21 ¶ 109-10, 133);

• OCR denied his right to appeal in violation of CPM § 112 (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 123-25, 139-40);

• OCR's case file failed to contain documentation to support the decision in violation of CPM § 301 (D.E. 21 ¶ 173);

• Under CPM § 306, OCR had no authority to close his appeal (D.E. 21 ¶ 109, 117, 123-25);

• OCR conducted an improper de novo review on appeal in violation of CPM § 306 (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 78-80); and

• OCR used oral testimony in its determination without obtaining written corroboration as required under CPM § 602 (D.E. 21 ¶¶ 100-02, 175).

He characterizes these things as negligence, violations of his constitutional rights, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Williams seeks money damages based on an alleged loss of income and medical conditions allegedly caused by OCR's conduct. Id. ¶¶ 163, 176.

The United States filed its first motion to dismiss in April 2020, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief...