« Religion at work - No prayers, no Bible | Main | Third blog birthday for Michael Fitzgibbon »
Whitman v. Dept of Transportation - Supreme Court requests more briefs
May 02, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
Whitman v. Department of Transportation (US Supreme Court Docket No. 04-1131) raises the issue of whether the Civil Service Reform Act confers federal court jurisdiction. The case was argued on December 5, 2005, and today the Supreme Court asked counsel to file more briefs.
Here's the Court's order:
Counsel are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the applicability of Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993), to this case. The briefs, not to exceed 15 pages, are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, May 15, 2006.
About the case:
Whitman sued in federal court claiming 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. The trial court held it had no subject matter jurisdiction; the 9th Circuit affirmed; the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the 9th Circuit decision.
Decision below: Whitman v. Department of Transportation (9th Cir 08/30/2004).
The 9th Circuit reasoned that 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, the 9th Circuit said those cases are wrong because the 1994 amendment "does not constitute an express grant of federal court jurisdiction."
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
