Sillah v. Social Security Administration
- Joseph Spero
- 3:25-cv-07819
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Fatoumata Sillah v. Social Security Administration, Judge Lin denied a preliminary injunction because Sillah had not exhausted administrative remedies.
Fatoumata Sillah and the Social Security Administration; the order denied Sillah’s request to block possible discipline or removal while her administrative proceedings remained unresolved.
What happened
In Fatoumata Sillah v. Social Security Administration, Fatoumata Sillah challenged the Social Security Administration’s requirement that she complete a background investigation before returning to her job. She alleged the requirement was religious discrimination after an employee saw a Koran in her purse.
Sillah had challenged her removal before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which ordered her reinstatement. But her separate challenge to the background-investigation requirement was still pending before that agency, and no final decision had been issued.
Judge Rita F. Lin denied Sillah’s motion for a preliminary injunction because she had not shown that she completed the required administrative process before filing in federal court. The court did not decide the other injunction factors, and it canceled the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Sillah v. Social Security Administration · No. 3:25-cv-07819
- Joseph Spero
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Fatoumata Sillah, representing herself, brought this action concerning her reinstatement as a Claims Technical Expert with the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) reversed her March 2, 2023 removal on March 18, 2025, and ordered her reinstated.
The SSA instructed Sillah to complete several requirements before resuming work, including a background investigation under 5 C.F.R. § 1400. Sillah alleged that the SSA imposed this requirement after an employee saw a Koran in her purse and that the requirement was religious discrimination. She filed a petition for enforcement with the MSPB challenging the background-investigation requirement and raising other issues. The petition was still being briefed, and the MSPB administrative judge had not issued a final decision.
Sillah filed this federal action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law prohibiting certain employment discrimination, and asked the court to stop the SSA from removing her for failing to comply with the background-investigation requirement. The SSA had notified her that continued employment depended on compliance and that failure to comply could result in discipline, including removal.
Legal standard
A preliminary injunction is an emergency court order issued before final judgment. To obtain one, a plaintiff generally must show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and that the order would serve the public interest. The Ninth Circuit also permits a sliding-scale approach in which a strong showing on one factor can offset a weaker showing on another, subject to the required showing of likely irreparable injury and public interest.
Analysis
The court held that Sillah had not raised a serious question about the merits of her Title VII claim because she had not shown that she exhausted available administrative remedies. Federal employees must complete an available administrative process before filing an employment-discrimination case in federal court.
To the extent Sillah sought review of orders from the MSPB administrative judge’s status conferences, the court stated that she had to wait for a final MSPB decision before seeking judicial review. The court also explained that the MSPB’s March 18, 2025 decision concerning Sillah’s 2023 removal did not support judicial review of the later alleged discrimination involving the background investigation. Sillah therefore had to exhaust the administrative remedies applicable to that new discrimination claim.
Disposition
The court denied the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Because Sillah had not shown a serious question going to the merits, the court did not address the remaining preliminary-injunction factors. The court also vacated the October 23, 2025 hearing, meaning no hearing would be held.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.