Anthony Chrisanthis v. United States
682 F. App'x 631
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress after not being considered for reinstatement to a prior VA position.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), and allowed pursuit of administrative remedies instead.
- Plaintiff contended on appeal that Defendants did not raise the CSRA before the district court; the panel found the record contradicts that contention and noted its independent obligation to ensure jurisdiction.
- The Ninth Circuit explained the CSRA establishes an exclusive administrative-judicial scheme that preempts state- or federal-law employment-related tort claims not preserved by the CSRA.
- The panel affirmed dismissal, leaving open administrative appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and subsequent CSRA judicial-review procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction over state-law tort claims arising from federal employment | Plaintiff argued defendants did not preserve CSRA preemption; claims should proceed in court | Defendants argued CSRA preempts such claims and deprives federal courts of jurisdiction | Court held CSRA preempts and strips federal jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the CSRA bars state or federal tort claims related to federal employment | Plaintiff maintained his tort and ADA-related claims could proceed | Defendants maintained CSRA’s exclusive review scheme governs and ousts those claims | Court held the CSRA’s integrated scheme preempts non-preserved tort claims regardless of label |
| Proper forum for remedies (MSPB/administrative remedies) | Plaintiff had not pursued or obtained final administrative action before appeal | Defendants argued plaintiff must use CSRA administrative procedures (MSPB) before judicial review | Court noted MSPB is the appropriate forum and that judicial review under CSRA is available after administrative processes |
| Adequacy of ADA argument on appeal | Plaintiff referenced ADA/disabled-status claim | Defendants pointed to lack of developed ADA argument in briefing | Court declined to address ADA because plaintiff raised it only summarily and did not develop the argument |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (CSRA creates an integrated administrative-judicial scheme governing federal employment disputes)
- Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1991) (CSRA preempts state tort law for federal employment-related claims)
- Mangano v. United States, 529 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2008) (CSRA’s exclusive and preemptive scheme displaces FTCA and similar claims)