784 F.3d 247
5th Cir.2015Background
- Blanca Ruiz sued (post-remand) after the district court was previously held to have erred in dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Fifth Circuit remanded for determination about her placement in an administrative class action.
- Postmaster General Donahoe filed a petition for rehearing arguing, for the first time, that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) required mandatory grievance/arbitration, which he contends divests the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Donahoe did not raise the CBA-arbitration argument in the district court or on initial appeal; he asserted it only in the petition for rehearing.
- The panel considered whether mandatory grievance/arbitration provisions in a CBA are jurisdictional defects that can be raised for the first time on rehearing.
- The court explained Supreme Court precedent limits the term “jurisdictional” to power to hear a case and that arbitration/forum-selection rules are waivable procedural rules, not subject-matter jurisdictional bars.
- Because Donahoe failed to raise the arbitration/grievance argument earlier, the court held he waived it and denied the petition for rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory CBA grievance/arbitration procedures deprive the federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Ruiz: court has jurisdiction; prior remand stands | Donahoe: CBA makes grievance/arbitration exclusive, so federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction | The CBA arbitration issue is not jurisdictional but waivable; Donahoe waived it by not raising earlier |
| Whether arbitration provisions must be enforced by dismissal rather than stay | Ruiz: stay or adjudicate as appropriate | Donahoe: dismissal appropriate if arbitration is mandatory | Court: arbitration provisions implicate forum/claims-processing rules; dismissal only when all issues must be arbitrated; usually stay is proper |
| Whether arguments not raised below may be raised in a petition for rehearing | Ruiz: late-raising is waived | Donahoe: subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, so not waived | Court: arbitration is not subject-matter jurisdiction; thus late argument is waived |
| Proper remedy when claims are covered by mandatory arbitration | Ruiz: follow FAA and stay pending arbitration | Donahoe: seek dismissal if all issues are arbitrable | Court: courts generally should stay under the FAA; dismissal only when all issues must be submitted to arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Donahoe, 751 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2014) (CBA required pursuing Rehabilitation Act claims through grievance/arbitration in that case)
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (caution about using "jurisdictional" label only for true jurisdictional defects)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen, 558 U.S. 67 (2009) (defining subject-matter jurisdiction as a tribunal’s power to hear a case)
- Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161 (5th Cir. 1992) (dismissal appropriate where all issues are subject to arbitration)