Former Employee of Drive Sol Global Steering, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, 181 F. Supp. 3d 1369

Background

Plaintiff is a former Drive Sol employee who applied for Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA) benefits after a Labor certification of the Drive Sol worker group; Connecticut Department of Labor (CT Labor) acted as federal agent to determine individual eligibility.
CT Labor initially found Plaintiff eligible for weekly TRA benefits but later denied full benefits based on a state "work search" requirement; Plaintiff appealed through Connecticut administrative and state courts unsuccessfully; CT Labor later moved to vacate the state-court judgment and the motion was granted.
Plaintiff alleges he suffered monetary harms (delayed/partial payments, travel and administrative expenses, retirement-penalty costs, higher taxes) and challenges both CT Labor’s individual eligibility denial and DOL’s oversight/mismanagement of TRA funds.
Plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d) or, alternatively, § 1581(i); the Secretary of Labor moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The CIT held it lacks jurisdiction under § 1581(d)(1) because that provision permits review only of DOL group-certification determinations (19 U.S.C. § 2273), not individual eligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 2291; state courts have exclusive review over individual eligibility determinations made by cooperating state agencies per 19 U.S.C. § 2311(e).
The court also held § 1581(i)(4) (residual jurisdiction) does not confer jurisdiction here because it is limited to administration and enforcement of matters tied to § 1581(d)(1) (group certification); the court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 in the interest of justice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CIT has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d)(1) to review denial of individual TRA benefits	The denial of individual benefits by CT Labor is the functional equivalent of denying group certification, so § 1581(d)(1) applies	§ 1581(d)(1) is limited to review of DOL group-certification determinations under 19 U.S.C. § 2273, not individual eligibility	Court: No jurisdiction under § 1581(d)(1); individual eligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 2291 is not reviewable in CIT under that provision
Whether CIT has residual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) for claims about DOL’s administration/oversight	Plaintiff: claim challenges administration/enforcement of certification because CT Labor’s work-search rule violates federal law; thus § 1581(i)(4) applies	Defendant: § 1581(i)(4) cannot expand CIT jurisdiction beyond administration/enforcement of group certifications; claim concerns individual eligibility and state-agency actions	Court: No jurisdiction under § 1581(i)(4); residual jurisdiction limited to matters related to group-certification administration/enforcement
Whether plaintiff can obtain federal-court review of alleged systemic violations of federal TRA law	Plaintiff contends systemic violations (state policy endorsed/overseen by DOL) can be heard in federal court (distinguishing individual eligibility claims)	Defendant argues individual-benefit claims belong in state court per § 2311(e) and Brock	Court: Such systemic challenges may be cognizable in federal district court, but not in CIT; transfer to district court is appropriate
Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to a federal district court is appropriate	Transfer is in the interest of justice because plaintiff filed in good faith, claim not frivolous, and a district court may have jurisdiction	Defendant: Transfer is inappropriate because plaintiff’s claim is barred from federal court and only state courts have jurisdiction under § 2311(e)	Court: Transfer to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut is appropriate under § 1631 to allow merits review in a court that may have jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.) (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 672 F.3d 1041 (Fed. Cir.) (CIT operates within narrow statutory jurisdictional limits)
Former Employees of Quality Fabricating, Inc. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (§ 1581(d) does not permit review of all TAA determinations)
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274 (Sup. Ct.) (state courts have exclusive review over state agency application of federal TAA guidelines)
Hampe v. Butler, 364 F.3d 90 (3d Cir.) (district court may hear challenge to DOL approval of a state policy that violates Trade Act)