October 2, 2007 letter about her to the ODAR’s Office of Special Counsel was libelous. The State court action was removed to federal court. The federal district court dismissed Anderson's claims against Stier and substituted the United States as the defendant pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The federal court then dismissed Anderson’s libel, slander and defamation claims based on limitations and dismissed her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Fifth Circuit recently reversed, holding that Stier, not the United States, was the proper party because he was acting outside the scope of his employment when he allegedly defamed her. See A Local 2607, No. Civ. A. 05-0408 RMU, 2005 WL 3275903 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2005) (<HOLDING>). Here, the alleged defamatory statements were
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under  1983 holding that supervisors libel claims against supervisee and supervisees union representative were preempted by csra because statements giving rise to supervisors claims were made during course of administrative grievance against supervisor holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted holding that claims based on alleged defamatory statements made during course of grievance were preempted by csra because as union representative subordinate was recommending personnel action against supervisor by filing grievance