United States District Court, D. Idaho
CONSTANCE R. RAFFERTY, Plaintiff,
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., and JOINT TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye U.S. District Court Judge.
matter comes before the Court on two motions: Plaintiff
Constance Rafferty's Motion to Reopen Discovery and
Compel Compliance with Discovery Obligations (Dkt. 48) and
Defendant KeyPoint Government Solution's
(“KeyPoint”) Motion for Protective Order (Dkt.
47). The Court held oral argument on these two Motions on May
23, 2018. For the reasons outlined below, the Court finds
good cause to GRANT the Motion to Reopen Discovery and DENY
the Motion for Protective Order.
Facts Relevant to Complaint
Joint Technical Services, LLC (“JTS”) hired
Rafferty as a Program Manager in March 2010. JTS is a New
Mexico company, but it does a substantial amount of business
in Idaho, including employing individuals in and around Idaho
Falls, Idaho, to process security clearance applications for
the U.S. Department of Energy Idaho (“DOE-ID”)
related to the Idaho National Laboratory (“INL”).
JTS is a direct subcontractor with DOE-ID's Personnel
Security Office (“PERSEC”) that is employed to
process security clearance background checks for the INL. JTS
works in the same office suite as DOE-ID and interacts with
PERSEC employees frequently. As a Program Manager for JTS,
Rafferty herself was required to pass a security clearance
periodically. She successfully passed this review while
working for JTS for the last time on June 30, 2014.
asserts a variety of grievances about her employment at JTS.
She first claims she was cited for minor procedural security
issues and other trivial concerns initiated by a DOE-ID
employee whom she had investigated after he was accused of
making racial comments. Second, she asserts JTS employees did
not receive her “disabilities” very well.
Specifically, she asserts she was suffering from insulin
resistance that caused additional health issues, including
sleep deprivation. In addition, she suffered from some mental
health problems. Finally, Rafferty alleges she was
“physically assaulted” by an DOE-ID employee,
Edith Ruiz, on July 3, 2014, after Rafferty took down signs
Ruiz placed in the women's restroom that Rafferty thought
were offensive to people with disabilities. Rafferty reported
the incident. Ruiz had also made allegations about Rafferty.
As a result of this incident, Rafferty's supervisor,
Patrick Lashinski, gave Rafferty the option of resigning or
being terminated. Rafferty chose to resign from JTS on July
she resigned, Rafferty began searching for new employment in
the same field. On September 26, 2014, KeyPoint offered
Rafferty a position as an Investigator 2. Like JTS, KeyPoint
also employs individuals in and around Idaho Falls, Idaho, to
conduct security clearance background checks, often for INL
employees. Rafferty accepted the position immediately. Like
with her position at JTS, Rafferty also needed to pass a
background check for this position with KeyPoint. To pass the
background check, Rafferty was required to complete and
submit the electronic version of an SF86 form, also known as
an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing or
“e-QIP.” Plaintiff submitted her e-QIP directly
to the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) on
October 20, 2014. She then began training on December 1,
2014. As part of her training, Rafferty was required to
review files at DOE-ID PERSEC. While visiting DOE-ID PERSEC,
some of Rafferty's former co-workers discovered Rafferty
was working at KeyPoint. Rafferty alleges these former
co-workers acted strange during the visit.
December 18 or 19, 2014, OPM contacted KeyPoint to inform it
that Rafferty's security clearance had been suspended.
Rafferty could not continue her training with KeyPoint
without this security clearance. KeyPoint then terminated
Rafferty. Rafferty believes JTS, or DOE-ID at the urging of
JTS, contacted KeyPoint to provide derogatory information
about her, including information about her alleged
disabilities, which she had not told KeyPoint about. Rafferty
claims KeyPoint decided to terminate her because of those
communications and because of KeyPoint's belief that she
suffered from a disability, and that it used the fact that
OPM suspended her clearance as an excuse to terminate her.
During discovery, Rafferty obtained a letter from OPM stating
that the agency had “suspended Ms. Rafferty's
access, as part of the adjudicative process, pending the
outcome of her scheduled RSI (case #1500421324).” Dkt.
51-8, at 2. Rafferty alleges that, after OPM received
notification that KeyPoint had terminated her, OPM
discontinued “all work on the RSI.” Id.
Based on this evidence, Rafferty asserts OPM suspended her
access as a formality rather than because she had any real
problems that would prevent her from passing a background
check and that, if KeyPoint had not terminated her, OPM would
have continued working on her RSI and ultimately reinstated
her access. Accordingly, Rafferty argues that KeyPoint's
reasons for terminating her are illegitimate.
KeyPoint terminated her, Rafferty filed a complaint with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
KeyPoint undertook an internal investigation in response to
the complaint. Michael Hegedus, KeyPoint's Corporate
Security Director, conducted the investigation. At the end of
his investigation, he produced a one-page report, which
KeyPoint's counsel used in responding to the EEOC
complaint. KeyPoint claims attorney-client privilege protects
early 2016, Rafferty received right to sue letters. Rafferty
then filed this case against JTS and KeyPoint. She asserts
the following claims against JTS: (1) retaliation in
violation of federal law; (2) retaliation in violation of the
Idaho Human Rights Act (“IHRA”); (3) intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage; (4)
intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5)
negligent infliction of emotional distress. She also asserts
the following claims against KeyPoint: (6) discrimination
based on perceived disability in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act Amendments (“ADAA”); (7)
discrimination based on perceived disability in violation of
the IHRA; (8 disability discrimination in violation of the
ADAA; and (9) disability discrimination in violation of the
Facts Relevant to Pending Motions
parties originally stipulated to a discovery plan under which
fact discovery would end July 28, 2017. However, the parties
subsequently stipulated to extending this deadline several
times. Fact discovery ended near the end of November 2017.
Rafferty now asks the Court to reopen discovery for 60 days
and to compel Defendants to produc certain discovery.
Specifically, Rafferty requests the following:
1. That Angela Deabler's deposition be reopened and
KeyPoint directed to adequately prepare her for Rule 30(b)(6)
2. That KeyPoint be ordered to provide the information from
or contained within the KIPPTS database regarding Plaintiff;
3. That KeyPoint be ordered to identify who had discussions
with DOE-ID PERSEC as identified in the ...