Sillah v. Social Security Administration

Background

Fatoumata Sillah, who was representing herself, sued the Social Security Administration (SSA) over events surrounding her reinstatement as a Claims Technical Expert. According to the opinion, Sillah alleged that she was unlawfully removed on March 2, 2023, appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), was ordered reinstated on March 18, 2025, and returned to work on May 5, 2025.

Sillah alleged that guards at the SSA’s credentialing office subjected her to additional security checks after seeing her Muslim headscarf and Koran. She also alleged that the SSA required her to undergo a national-security counterintelligence investigation even though, according to her, her position did not require one. She declined to undergo the investigation and filed an MSPB petition seeking enforcement of the reinstatement order. The opinion states that the MSPB later decided that petition, but Sillah did not ask this court to review that decision.

The opinion describes claims concerning an MSPB order, Title VII retaliation and disparate treatment, the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. The opinion’s count labels are inconsistent: its earlier discussion identifies the Title VII claim as Count II, while its conclusion refers to the Title VII claim as Count I.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Sillah had not adequately pleaded exhaustion of Title VII’s administrative remedies. Her earlier MSPB appeal concerning her 2023 termination could not exhaust claims about alleged discrimination during the 2025 reinstatement process because the later events did not involve the serious personnel actions listed in 5 U.S.C. § 7512. The court also declined to decide whether the later MSPB compliance decision could establish exhaustion because Sillah did not seek review of that decision and it was not part of the record.

The court further found that Sillah’s allegations and attachments did not show that her current claims fell within the scope of her earlier Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges or that the lawsuit was timely. It also stated that a Title VII claim against the SSA had named the wrong defendant because such a claim must be brought against the agency head, identified in the opinion as Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano. The court did not decide whether the Title VII allegations otherwise stated a valid claim.

The court dismissed the First and Fifth Amendment claims because Title VII is the exclusive judicial remedy for federal employment discrimination. It dismissed the Administrative Procedure Act and MSPB-noncompliance claims as well. If those claims were based on discrimination, the court said Title VII displaced them; if they were based on non-discriminatory treatment, the Civil Service Reform Act’s review scheme applied, and the Federal Circuit—not this district court—would have exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal from a final MSPB decision. The conclusion also refers to the Court of Federal Claims as the proper forum for any exhausted, non-preempted claims.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It dismissed the Title VII claim, identified as Count I in the conclusion, with leave to amend. It dismissed Counts II through V without leave to amend because they were preempted by Title VII or could not be heard in this court. If Sillah did not amend, the court stated that the dismissal would be without prejudice to filing a new lawsuit after exhausting administrative remedies and in the proper forum for each claim.

The court denied Sillah’s request for appointment of counsel because she had not shown exceptional circumstances requiring counsel. The court permitted an amended complaint limited to the surviving claim and set April 7, 2026, as the filing deadline.