Judge Brad Garcia, nominated by President Biden to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote a unanimous opinion that reversed a lower court and gave an ATF employee the opportunity to move forward with his complaint that he was denied a promotion in retaliation for previous EEO complaints. The July 2024 decision was in Ho v Garland.
What is the background of this case?
Tommy Ho, an Asian-American, has worked for the federal bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) since 2015. He filed three EEO complaints in 2015-2018 claiming first that he was discriminated against on the basis of race when he was involuntarily transferred and then that he was denied a promotion in retaliation for previous EEO complaints.
Ho applied for another promotion in 2019 but was denied. The ATF and the EEOC denied administrative complaints by Ho claiming retaliation. Acting on his own without an attorney, Ho then filed a federal court complaint. Without any discovery, the district court dismissed the complaint, holding that Ho’s complaint had “failed to sufficiently allege a causal connection between the protected EEO activity and his non-selection.” Ho appealed to the DCCircuit.
How did Judge Garcia and the DC Circuit Rule and Why is it Important?
Judge Garcia wrote a unanimous decision that reversed the district court ruling and sent the case back so that Ho can try to prove his claims. Although Garcia noted that complaints drafted by non-lawyers should be :liberally construed,” he also recognized that such complaints must “contain sufficient [alleged] factual matter” to “state a claim for relief.” After careful analysis of the record, Garcia concluded that the complaint met this standard.
Specifically, Garcia found that a number of facts as alleged by Ho, taken together, were sufficient to support Ho’s contention that retaliation for his earlier EEO activity helped cause his non-selection. These included the fact that several of the officials involved in the non-selection were named by Ho in the prior EEO complaints, that Ho was “well qualified” for the position, that ATF had a strong interest in filling the position, and that the reason Ho was not promoted was “entirely subjective.” While far from proving Ho’s case, Garcia explained, Ho’s allegations “narrowly suffice” to support a “plausible inference” that retaliation for Ho’s EEO activity caused this non-selection and Ho should be able to move forward with discovery and try to prove his case.
Judge Garcia’s decision is obviously important to Tommy Ho and his effort to obtain justice for the discrimination that he contends that he suffered. The ruling also sets an important precedent, particularly in the DC Circuit, concerning how courts should handle complaints that are drafted by non-lawyers and claim that prior EEO complaints helped cause adverse employment action. In addition, the decision serves as a reminder of the importance of prompt confirmation of fair-minded judges to our federal courts.