American Federation of Government Employees v. Secretary of the Air Force
405 U.S. App. D.C. 66
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- AFGE challenges Air Force instructions requiring ARTs to wear military uniforms during civilian duties.
- ARTs are civilians employed to support Air Force Selected Reserve members per 10 U.S.C. §10216(a).
- Air Force issued three instructions on Aug 6, 2007 implementing uniform wear for ARTs.
- AFGE alleges harms from the dress code, including status confusion and restrictions on everyday conduct.
- District court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing CSRA exclusivity and exhaustion requirements; AFGE appealed.
- CSRA/FSLMRS provides exclusive avenues to challenge management actions; district court review is barred under the CSRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the CSRA/FSLMRS exclusive remedy precluding district court review? | AFGE argues CSRA exclusions do not apply. | Air Force/Secretary argues CSRA exclusive remedial scheme precludes district court review. | Yes; CSRA exclusive scheme bars district court review. |
| Can National AFGE sue in district court despite individual locals’ CSRA avenues? | National AFGE seeks nationwide relief outside CSRA. | CSRA excludes extrastatutory review for such parties. | No; National AFGE cannot sue outside CSRA. |
| Do available administrative routes foreclose district-court action? | AFGE Locales already pursued bargaining/arbitration; claim could be heard otherwise. | FSLMRS provides exclusive grievance/arbitration/bargaining avenues; district court lacks jurisdiction. | Multiple CSRA routes exist; district court review inappropriate. |
| Was district court required to apply administrative exhaustion before dismissal? | Exhaustion not required where CSRA precludes review. | Exhaustion proper under CSRA framework before any review. | Administrative exhaustion not applicable; CSRA precludes district-court review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 560 F.3d 495 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (CSRA is a comprehensive, exclusive remedial scheme)
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (integrated administrative and judicial review; exclusive forums)
- Filebark v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 555 F.3d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (CSRA exclusivity; can't circumvent by APA claims)
- Steadman v. Governor, U.S. Soldiers’ & Airmen’s Home, 918 F.2d 963 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (illustrates CSRA framework and judicial review limits)
- Nyunt v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 589 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Leedom-like considerations; limits on extrastatutory review)
- Nicholson v. AFGE, 475 F.3d 341 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (distinguishes when district court review is unavailable under CSRA)
- Loy v. AFGE, 367 F.3d 932 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (discusses limits of CSRA review and standing)