« Anti-class-action clause was unconscionable | Main | US Supreme Court roundup »
Cert granted on Civil Service Reform Act
June 27, 2005 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 27 to review a 9th Circuit holding that the federal Civil Service Reform Act "does not confer federal court jurisdiction over statutory and constitutional claims concerning employment-related matters within the scope of the negotiated grievance procedures of a federal employee's collective bargaining agreement." Whitman v. Department of Transportation (Docket No. 04-1131).
Terry Whitman claimed his employer, the Federal Aviation Administration, disproportionately tested him for substance abuse in violation of the first amendment and the federal statute on mandatory drug testing.
First Whitman filed a charge with the Federal Labor Relations Agency, but the FLRA said his claim was not within its jurisdiction. FLRA said his recourse was through the grievance procedures of his collective bargaining agreement.
Whitman did not pursue the grievance procedure of the collective agreement.
Whitman sued the FAA in federal district court, and that court said it had no subject matter jurisdiction. The 9th Circuit agreed. Whitman v. Department of Transportation (9th Cir 08/30/2004).
The 9th Circuit's reasoning:
- The FAA Management System, including certain provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), governs FAA employees' employment rights and generally does not allow federal court suits.
- The CSRA requires collective bargaining agreements to include procedures for resolving "grievances," and defines "grievance" broadly to include Whitman's claims.
- Before 1994 CSRA provided that the collectively bargained procedures "shall be the exclusive procedures for resolving grievances." The 1994 amendment provided that the collectively bargained procedures "shall be the exclusive administrative procedures for resolving grievances."
- Although the Federal and 11th Circuits have held that the 1994 amendment established an employee's right to seek a judicial remedy, those cases are wrong because the 1994 amendment "does not constitute an express grant of federal court jurisdiction."
Interesting that Whitman represented himself in the 9th Circuit and is now represented by Thomas C. Goldstein of Goldstein & Howe, a firm that specializes in representing clients before the US Supreme Court.
|
|
« Anti-class-action clause was unconscionable | Main | US Supreme Court roundup »
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
