United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Motion for Summary Affirmance Appeal from the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia (No.
L. Campbell and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorneys,
were on the motion for summary affirmance.
Lee, pro se, was on the response for appellant.
Before: Rogers, Kavanaugh, and Millett, Circuit Judges.
Lee, proceeding pro se, appeals the grant of the
motion for judgment on the pleadings to the United States
Agency for International Development ("USAID") and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
("NOAA") (together "the agencies"). Lee
contends that the agencies violated Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et
seq., by terminating his employment because of his
national origin. He also contends that NOAA violated 18
U.S.C. § 1001, which criminalizes false statements to
the government, by lying about why he was terminated.
only aspect of his appeal that merits extended discussion is
whether 18 U.S.C. § 1001 creates a private right of
action. We hold it does not.
to the complaint, Lee was employed by a federal contracting
firm and worked at USAID from 2008 until he was fired in
2013. Lee alleges that USAID terminated his employment after
the Department of Defense denied his application for a
security clearance in 2012, and that he was denied a
clearance because he and his family are from China.
2013, Lee began working for NOAA. As with his previous
position, he was employed directly by a federal contracting
firm, SSAI. On April 30, 2014, Lee was fired.
contacted several people at the Department of Defense, NOAA,
and SSAI to determine why his employment was terminated.
Believing he was fired because of his national origin, Lee
alleges he called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") around the end of May or beginning of June
to make a complaint against NOAA. An EEOC representative
purportedly told Lee that he would have to sue SSAI, which in
turn, would sue NOAA. Several months later, Lee contacted
NOAA's Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO")
office and began communicating with an EEO counselor. Lee
alleges that during the counselor's investigation of his
claims, a NOAA official told her that SSAI, not NOAA, decided
to fire Lee. The counselor emailed Lee to inform him of this
information, specifying that SSAI contacted NOAA and told the
agency to stop processing Lee's paperwork because SSAI
decided to take him off the NOAA contract. Lee alleges that
when he contacted an SSAI manager and told him what the EEO
counselor had said, the manager told him that "was
absolutely not true."
filed with the EEOC an employment discrimination complaint
against SSAI. When the EEOC dismissed his complaint, he sued
USAID and NOAA in the district court, seeking damages and an
injunction against further discrimination and retaliation. He
alleges that NOAA and USAID violated Title VII by terminating
his employment because of his national origin and that NOAA
violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by falsely stating during the
EEO investigation that SSAI, rather than NOAA, fired him. The
district court granted the agencies' motion for judgment
on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint with prejudice,
ruling that Lee does not have a Title VII claim against the
federal government because he was a federal contractor, not a
federal employee, and in any event, Lee failed to timely
exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court also
ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 1001 does not provide a private
right of action. Lee appeals the dismissal of his complaint,
and the agencies move for summary affirmance.
appeal, Lee offers no legal support to show that Section 1001
provides a private cause of action. Because this is a
recurring issue and there are no published decisions by the
Court, we address it ...