Sauer v. United States Department of Education
668 F.3d 644
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Randolph-Sheppard Act creates a cooperative program for blind vendors to operate vending facilities on federal property, administered by the Secretary of Education with state licensing agencies.
- California DOR was designated as the state licensing agency; Zelickson, a blind vendor, operated a Roybal Building snack shop under a DOR permit.
- GSA terminated Zelickson in 1997; DOR opposed, but GSA suspended DOR's permit and issued a revocable license to another vendor.
- In 2000, an arbitration panel ordered GSA to reinstate Zelickson and set a process for damages if GSA did not comply; GSA failed to reinstate or litigate his qualifications.
- DOR failed to compel GSA to comply or file suit despite efforts; Zelickson pursued separate arbitration in 2006-2008 alleging DOR breached duties to enforce the award.
- The 2008 arbitration panel held DOR liable for Zelickson’s damages for not suing GSA to enforce the 2000 award; district court upheld the award; both DOR and DOE appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act imposes a duty on state agencies to sue federal agencies to enforce arbitration awards | Sauer: no mandatory duty; arbitration panel exceeded authority. | DOE: enforcement mechanisms rely on federal action; no duty to file suit. | No duty to sue; panel exceeded authority; judgment set aside. |
Key Cases Cited
- Premo v. Martin, 119 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 1997) (waived sovereign immunity to allow compensatory damages; no general obligation to enforce against federal government discussed)
- Md. State Dep't of Educ. v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 98 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 1996) (arbitration panel lacks authority to order remedial action by federal agency)
- Nash v. Ga. Dep't of Human Resources, 915 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1990) (panel cannot order federal remedial action; interpretation supports non-enforcement duty absence)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency discretion in enforcement decisions; no implied duty to sue)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (federal commandeering concerns; need for clear intent in imposing participation conditions)