Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation

Background

Brendan Schultz applied for a Harry S. Truman Scholarship and alleged that he was a finalist who was interviewed by the San Francisco Regional Review Panel. He alleged that panel members asked him and the only other Jewish finalist questions about Jewish oppression and the oppression of their ethnic group, while other finalists were not asked to defend traumatic communal experiences. Schultz was not selected for a scholarship.

Schultz later reported his concerns to Foundation personnel. He alleged that the Foundation investigated the interview, acknowledged that some panel members had acted with “irreverence,” and ultimately concluded that other candidates were better fits for the Foundation’s organization and mission. Schultz then contacted federal agencies and a congressional representative before filing this action.

The court reviewed Schultz’s Second Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires a court to dismiss an action filed without paying the filing fee if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

First Claim: Fifth Amendment

Schultz brought a claim under the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He sought an injunction, meaning a court order requiring or forbidding conduct, and damages under the implied remedy recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

The court found that Schultz’s allegations were sufficient at this stage to state a claim for injunctive relief against the Foundation. The court dismissed the request for injunctive relief against Babcock-Lumish, Rich, Yglesias, Murphy, Allen, and Higgins because Schultz sued those defendants in their individual capacities, while the challenged conduct and requested injunctions concerned their official conduct. The court also dismissed Schultz’s Fifth Amendment damages claim against all defendants. It reasoned that the claim arose in a new Bivens context, that extending a damages remedy would raise special concerns, and that Schultz had other possible forms of relief, including injunctive relief and an Administrative Procedure Act claim.

Second Claim: Administrative Procedure Act

Schultz alleged under the Administrative Procedure Act that the Foundation and others violated Executive Order 13160 by discriminating against him, that the Foundation violated its own procedures, and that Foundation personnel failed to create an adequate grievance procedure. He sought injunctive relief and damages.

The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize claims against individuals in their individual capacities and does not provide money damages. It therefore dismissed Schultz’s Administrative Procedure Act claims against Babcock-Lumish, Rich, Yglesias, Murphy, Allen, and Higgins, while allowing the claim for injunctive relief against the Foundation to proceed.

Third Claim: Title VI

Schultz alleged that the Foundation, Allen, and Higgins discriminated against him in reviewing his scholarship application and that Foundation personnel discriminated against him while reviewing his grievance. He sought damages under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The court dismissed the Title VI claim against the Foundation. It explained that Title VI applies to covered programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, but does not apply to programs conducted directly by federal agencies. The court also noted that individuals generally cannot be held liable under Title VI in their individual capacities. The order’s conclusion states that all claims against Babcock-Lumish, Rich, Yglesias, Murphy, Allen, and Higgins were dismissed and that the Third Claim against the Foundation was dismissed.

Disposition

The court dismissed all claims against the six individual defendants. It dismissed the Fifth Amendment damages claim against the Foundation and dismissed the Title VI claim against the Foundation. The remaining claims were Schultz’s requests for injunctive relief against the Foundation under the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Maxine M. Chesney directed the Clerk to issue summons and the United States Marshal to serve the Foundation without prepayment of fees.