Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation

Background

Brendan Schultz sued the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation under the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law governing certain agency actions. He alleged that the Foundation discriminated against him because of his Jewish identity during his finalist interview for a Harry S. Truman Scholarship. He also alleged that the Foundation handled his later discrimination grievance inadequately. The court had previously dismissed the two individual interview-panelist defendants, Brooks Allen and Kevin Higgins, leaving the Foundation as the defendant in this order.

Schultz sought four permanent injunctions: an impartial civil-rights grievance procedure; bias-prevention training for future interview panelists; restrictions on Allen and Higgins participating in future scholarship selection; and enrollment in the 2019 scholarship program without the requirement to attend Truman Scholars Leadership Week.

Venue

The Foundation argued that venue was improper in the Northern District of California and alternatively sought transfer to the District of Columbia. Because the Foundation is an agency of the United States, the court applied the federal venue statute governing suits against federal agencies. The court found that venue was proper in the Northern District of California because the alleged discriminatory interview occurred in San Francisco, which was a substantial part of the events underlying Schultz’s claims. The court therefore denied the Foundation’s motion to dismiss or transfer based on improper venue.

Transfer for Convenience

The court also denied the Foundation’s request to transfer the case to the District of Columbia. Although the case could have been brought there, the Foundation did not show that convenience and the interests of justice clearly favored transfer. The court found that the plaintiff’s choice of forum weighed slightly against transfer, witness convenience weighed against transfer, familiarity with the law was neutral, and access to records and court congestion weighed slightly in favor of transfer.

Standing

Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a personal injury that the court can likely remedy. The court held that Schultz had not shown that his requested injunctions would likely redress, or remedy, the denial of the scholarship.

The requested grievance procedure would not likely result in Schultz being selected for the scholarship. Schultz had already completed his interview and was ineligible to interview again, so orders concerning future interview panels would not benefit him. Finally, the court found that enrolling Schultz in the 2019 program without requiring attendance at Leadership Week would conflict with the Foundation’s regulations. Schultz did not challenge those regulations or explain why the court should order an exception for him.

Disposition

The court granted the Foundation’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The court allowed Schultz to amend his fourth request for injunctive relief, concerning enrollment in the scholarship program, because amendment was not necessarily futile. Any Third Amended Complaint had to be filed by September 26, 2022. Because the court found that Schultz lacked standing, it did not address the Foundation’s alternative argument that the complaint failed to state a claim.