Former Employee of Drive Sol Global Steering, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor
181 F. Supp. 3d 1369
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2016Background
- 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)