Wattawa v. McAleenan

Background

Lori Wattawa, a former employee of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, sued Kevin McAleenan and Mark Morgan, officials of the Department of Homeland Security, in their official capacities. Her complaint asserted two categories of claims: employment discrimination based on gender, age, disability, religion, and other statuses; and tort claims based on alleged conduct by the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Wattawa had previously brought an employment-discrimination lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. That earlier case ended in a dismissal with prejudice under a settlement agreement. A magistrate judge recommended allowing Wattawa’s employment-discrimination claims to proceed but dismissing her tort claims because she had not brought them under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Wattawa objected to the recommendation.

Employment-discrimination claims

After reviewing the challenged portions of the recommendation anew, the court ruled that the employment-discrimination claims were barred by res judicata, also called claim preclusion. This rule prevents a party from bringing the same claims again after an earlier case ended in a final judgment.

The court found that the earlier dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment on the merits and that Wattawa had not challenged the earlier court’s jurisdiction. It also found that the parties were legally connected because both lawsuits named Department of Homeland Security officials in their official capacities. The court further found that the present claims arose from the same factual period and substantially repeated claims from the earlier lawsuit.

The court considered allegations involving later years but found that most concerned administrative proceedings, appeals, and dealings with Wattawa’s lawyer rather than new discrimination by the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The court also found that other new allegations—including allegations involving following, “no-touch sound torture,” Verizon towers, and nearby churches—were either inapplicable, incoherent, implausible, or insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.

The court nevertheless dismissed the employment-discrimination claims without prejudice because Wattawa had remained employed by the Department of Homeland Security for at least some period after the earlier case ended. The court stated that the claims might be repleaded if she could allege applicable and plausible discrimination occurring after the earlier lawsuit concluded.

Tort claims

The court agreed that the tort claims against the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees had to be dismissed without prejudice. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides the exclusive remedy for certain injuries caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, and the United States—not individual federal employees—is the proper defendant for such claims.

Wattawa had not named the United States as a defendant and did not seek relief from the United States government itself. The court also noted that she had not alleged that the named defendants acted tortiously in their personal capacities. It therefore dismissed the tort claims without prejudice.

Order and effect

The court overruled Wattawa’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in part. It dismissed the matter without prejudice, denied Wattawa’s motion for an injunction as moot, and denied her application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The opinion does not state that the court reached the merits of whether discrimination or tortious conduct actually occurred.