736 F.3d 1032
6th Cir.2013Background
- Krafsur, a federal administrative law judge, alleged Davenport reprimanded him for high-fee awards and retaliated against him, including leave denial and pay withholding.
- Krafsur bypassed the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) grievance process by filing suit in district court rather than pursuing OSC/Board avenues.
- Krafsur asserted constitutional claims under Bivens against Davenport and statutory/constitutional claims under the Tucker Act and the Administrative Procedure Act against the SSA.
- The district court dismissed, ruling the CSRA provides exclusive remedies for personnel actions, precluding district-court review.
- This appeal concerns whether CSRA exclusivity applies to constitutional challenges and whether Bivens or CSRA-AAPA claims may proceed.
- The court ultimately held that CSRA exclusivity applies to both statutory and constitutional challenges to personnel decisions, foreclosing Krafsur’s district-court claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Krafsur sue Davenport under Bivens? | Krafsur contends the constitutional violation warrants a direct Bivens action. | Davenport and the government argue CSRA exclusivity bars Bivens for personnel actions. | Bivens action barred; CSRA exclusivity applies. |
| Does CSRA exclusivity preclude Tucker Act/APA challenges to personnel decisions? | Krafsur asserts alternative remedies exist outside CSRA for constitutional claims. | CSRA provides the sole track for reviewing personnel actions, including constitutional challenges. | CSRA exclusivity precludes Tucker Act/APA constitutional challenges. |
| Does Doe-Elgin-Fausto framework govern exclusivity here? | Krafsur seeks a Doe heightened standard to bypass exclusivity due to constitutional claims. | Court should apply Fausto/Elgin to show exclusivity; Doe does not override here. | Fausto and Elgin control; Doe does not create an exception here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (creates a federal remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983) (CSRA's remedial scheme precludes new judicial remedies for personnel decisions)
- Fausto v. United States, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (CSRA exclusivity for challenging personnel decisions; comprehensive review scheme)
- Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012) (extends exclusivity to constitutional challenges under CSRA)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (highly clear statement rule; habeas context; not controlling here)
- Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) ( Doe-style analysis; preserved forum review when explicit bar absent)
- Doe v. United States, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (heightened standard for denying judicial forum for colorable claims)
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (government-as-employer considerations affect constitutional review)
- O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) (freedom in government employee context; balance of interests)
- Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (classification of personnel actions; two-tier review framework)
- For naro v. James, 416 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (context on CSRA exclusivity and remedial schemes)
- Elgin v. Dep't of Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012) (comprehensive, reticulated system precludes extra-judicial review)
- Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S. Ct. 596 (2012) (CSRA exclusivity; graduated remedies by action severity)