327 F. Supp. 3d 147
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Ahmad Nurriddin, a former NASA employee, received FECA compensation for work-related depression and pursued parallel employment-discrimination suits against NASA.
- OWCP approved his depression claim, paid substantial compensation, and on multiple occasions suspended or terminated benefits (including after missed OWCP-directed medical exams and an alleged rejection of a suitable job offer).
- Nurriddin exhausted various administrative processes (hearings, ECAB appeals, some successful remands and restorations); OWCP also conducted sua sponte Director reviews.
- He sued the Secretary of Labor (DOL) and the OPM Director in 2016 claiming improper suspensions/deductions, denial of records, improper medical examinations/doctor shopping, and OPM’s failure to ensure restoration to work under FECA/OPM rules; he asserted FECA, APA, and Fifth Amendment claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Nurriddin sought a preliminary injunction and to file an exhibit under seal.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding FECA and the CSRA preclude the court’s review of his claims; the injunctive and sealing motions were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review OWCP compensation decisions under FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8128) | Nurriddin challenges multiple benefit suspensions, deductions, and OWCP procedures and seeks judicial relief | DOL: § 8128(b) makes OWCP decisions final and precludes judicial review of compensation determinations | Held: § 8128(b) bars judicial review of these compensation decisions; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether constitutional claims (Fifth Amendment due process/equal protection) overcome FECA’s bar | Nurriddin contends due process and equal protection violations make his claims reviewable in court | DOL: constitutional claims must be colorable/substantial to escape § 8128(b); his allegations are case-specific and lack substance or proper exhaustion | Held: Court finds no colorable constitutional claim—administrative notice and post-deprivation remedies were adequate—so FECA bar stands |
| Whether OPM’s alleged failure to secure restoration to work is judicially reviewable (CSRA/MSPB) | Nurriddin argues OPM failed to ensure NASA restored him under 5 U.S.C. § 8151, so court review is proper | Defendants: Restoration claims fall within MSPB jurisdiction under CSRA; CSRA provides exclusive review path, precluding district-court review | Held: Claim against OPM is within MSPB/CSRA scheme; CSRA precludes district-court jurisdiction; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the APA provides an independent basis for jurisdiction | Nurriddin invokes the APA to review agency action | Defendants: APA does not confer independent jurisdiction to review FECA or CSRA-covered decisions | Held: APA does not supply independent jurisdiction; cannot circumvent FECA/CSRA bars |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 460 U.S. 190 (recognizing FECA’s bar on suits against the government in exchange for administrative compensation scheme)
- Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 470 U.S. 768 (discussing Congress’s intent to preclude judicial review of certain administrative benefit decisions)
- Lepre v. Department of Labor, 275 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir.) (holding constitutional claims may escape FECA bar only if colorable; discussing scope of exception)
- Czerkies v. Department of Labor, 73 F.3d 1435 (7th Cir.) (en banc) (debate whether all constitutional claims or only systemic ones escape FECA preclusion)
- Hall v. Department of Labor, 289 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C.) (applying FECA bar and recognizing narrow constitutional exception)
- Fausto v. Department of Agriculture, 484 U.S. 439 (analyzing CSRA’s comprehensive review scheme for personnel actions)
- Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (addressing exclusive CSRA review and availability of constitutional claims within that scheme)
- Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (setting basic procedural due process requirement: notice and opportunity to respond)