Queen v. Mooney

Background

Bathsheba Shunquita Queen, who is representing herself, sued LeShawn Mooney after alleging that Mooney sexually harassed her on numerous occasions. The opinion states that both parties work for the United States government and that Queen works as a nurse practitioner at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. Mooney oversees Queen’s work and the work of other nurse practitioners there.

The alleged conduct included lengthy after-hours phone calls involving sexual topics and graphic medical stories; an incident during a skills check when Mooney turned off the lights and told Queen to use a vein finder on Mooney; touching Queen’s chest over her shirt; following and blocking Queen near her government vehicle; and continuing unwanted contact after Queen asked for physical distance and no after-hours conversations. Queen later filed an internal complaint, and she entered into an agreement with the VA under which Mooney would limit contact with her. Queen alleges that the VA later required her to attend certain meetings in person and that Mooney’s conduct continued. Queen says a later private meeting resulted in a written reprimand against her.

Queen originally filed in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. She requested a civil-harassment restraining order requiring Mooney to remain at least 100 yards away from her, her home, workplace, school, and car. Mooney removed the action to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442.

Motion and legal standard

Mooney moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—the power to hear the case. Mooney made a facial challenge, meaning the court evaluated whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient on their face and accepted those allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

Mooney argued that sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause barred the action. Sovereign immunity generally protects the government from lawsuits unless it clearly gives up that protection. The Supremacy Clause can also prevent state-law relief from interfering with a federal officer’s performance of federal duties. Mooney separately argued that the derivative-jurisdiction doctrine required dismissal because, according to Mooney, the state court lacked jurisdiction before the case was removed.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed that the requested order could interfere with Mooney’s ability to work at the VA, so the request triggered an analysis of sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause. But the court concluded that neither doctrine required dismissal because an exception applies when a federal employee acts outside the scope of the employee’s authority.

At the pleading stage, the court concluded that the alleged sexual harassment—including the after-hours sexual discussions and graphic stories—was not conduct within Mooney’s authority as a VA employee. The court stated that Mooney did not explain how the alleged sexual harassment fell within that authority and identified no court holding that sexual harassment falls within a federal employee’s authority. The court distinguished decisions involving workplace conduct that was related to the defendants’ official duties.

The court also rejected the derivative-jurisdiction argument. That doctrine can require a federal court to dismiss a removed case if the state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over it. Because the court concluded that sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause did not bar Queen’s suit at the pleading stage, the court concluded that those doctrines did not deprive the state court of jurisdiction over the action.

Ruling and effect

Judge Susan Van Keulen denied Mooney’s motion to dismiss. The denial addressed Mooney’s request to dismiss the entire action; it did not decide whether Queen’s allegations are ultimately true or establish that Queen is entitled to the requested restraining order. The court stated that Mooney remained free to challenge the scope of Queen’s requested relief later in the case.

The parties were ordered to appear for an initial case-management conference on September 10, 2024, and to file a joint case-management statement by September 3, 2024.