Overview
On October 16, 2024, the Honorable Jia M. Cobb of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary approval of a $22.6 million settlement against the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) for alleged gender discrimination of 34 women, who were dismissed from the FBI’s new agent training program between April 17, 2015 and August 10, 2024. In the same order, Judge Cobb certified the class.
In addition to monetary relief, the settlement also provides that eligible class members may seek reinstatement to the FBI’s new agent training program. The settlement also requires the FBI to participate in a fulsome review by two outside experts. These experts will work with the FBI to ensure that women seeking to become FBI agents in the future face a fair evaluation process. This includes the eligible class members who may seek reinstatement. The settlement will become effective only after final approval is granted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The women alleged they were terminated from the training program due to a systematic practice of intentional gender discrimination and that the dismissal process had a disparate impact on women trainees. The class action was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Other Important Rulings
- On April 15, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the FBI’s motion to dismiss.
- On December 6, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued a special report, called “Evaluation of Gender Equity in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Training Process for New Special Agents and Intelligence Analysts at the FBI Academy.” The report was initiated at the request of U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, which became aware of this lawsuit, originally filed against the FBI in 2019. The report evaluates of policies and practices, trends, and patterns for male and female trainees, as well as perceptions of gender equity at the FBI Academy.
Case Background
FBI new agent trainees begin their training at the FBI Academy with basic training, a twenty-week course that includes six to eight weeks of academic courses and twelve to fourteen weeks of training and testing on law enforcement skills. The law enforcement skills portion of basic training consists of three “blocks”: Firearms Training, Physical Training/Defensive Tactics (one block), and Tactical Training. During these blocks of training, new agent trainees receive training from their supervisory special agent instructors.
In each of the three law enforcement skills training blocks, the new agent trainees are evaluated using a rubric assigned to the particular block. If a supervisory special agent believes that a new agent trainee has failed to demonstrate sufficient practical skills as required in one of these units, the Supervisory Special Agent may issue a disciplinary citation, called a “suitability notation,” on the new agent trainee’s record. In addition, suitability notations may be issued for deficiencies in the “suitability dimensions” (conscientiousness, cooperativeness, emotional maturity, initiative, integrity, and judgment).
Plaintiffs routinely passed the primarily objective tests in the academic, physical fitness, and firearms blocks of training. However, female new agent trainees received suitability notations based on the subjectively evaluated “suitability dimensions” more often than similar men. Moreover, female new agent trainees received discriminatory suitability notations primarily from instructors in the Tactical Training Unit (a unit that staffs one of the instructional blocks for practical applications of skills), who judge women more harshly than men because they view tactical skills as innate, and unteachable. Gender stereotypes and a culture of sexism within Basic Training have caused instructors to issue suitability notations in a discriminatory manner. For example, behavior has been adjudged “command presence” when exhibited by a male new agent trainee who explains his choice of action that an instructor criticized, but “failure to accept responsibility” or “lack of integrity” when a female new agent trainee provides a similar explanation. Plaintiffs claim that female trainees received suitability notations more frequently and for more minor infractions than male trainees.
FBI new analyst trainees begin their training at the FBI Academy with 12 weeks in Basic Training. During the first approximately six to eight weeks, new analyst trainees and new agent trainees attend academic courses together. When the new agent trainees move on to law enforcement skills training units, new analyst trainees continue with additional academic and intelligence curriculum. Throughout Basic Training, they, like the new agent trainees, may receive suitability notations for perceived deficiencies in the FBI’s suitability dimensions. Female new analyst trainees are issued suitability notations more frequently for perceived deficiencies in the suitability dimensions than similarly situated male new analyst trainees.
Plaintiffs allege that because of their sex, female new agent and new analyst trainees were referred for Suitability Review or the Trainee Review Board, and discharged more frequently and for more minor infractions than similarly situated male trainees. The discharge decision is made by one individual, the Assistant Director for Training, with input from a small number of additional individuals on the Trainee Review Board.
Plaintiffs allege that the FBI’s system for discharge from Basic Training has had an adverse impact on the class of new agent trainees and new analyst trainees, that its policies and practices for issuing Suitability Notations and making other decisions culminating in discharge are excessively subjective, and that a small group of decision makers, similarly trained and working closely together, exercise discretion over issuing Suitability Notations; a smaller group of decision makers conducts Suitability Reviews or Training Review Boards; and a single decision maker, the Deputy Assistant Director of the Training Management Unit, decides on discharge.
The operative case name is: Bird, et al. v. Garland, No. 1:19-CV-1581 (JMC), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia