Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/937/604/192584/
Timestamp: 2020-02-18 07:16:17
Document Index: 482203219

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1101', '§ 410', '§ 1005', '§ 1005', '§ 7501', '§ 1001', 'art 650', 'art 650', 'art 650', 'art 650']

David J. Yokum, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster General, Gerald F. Merna,dempsey J. White, Jacquelynn Estes, James Rogers,james Gardner, Jack West, Joel S.trosch, Defendants-appellees, 937 F.2d 604 (4th Cir. 1991) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fourth Circuit › 1991 › David J. Yokum, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster General, Gerald F. Merna,dempse...
David J. Yokum, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster General, Gerald F. Merna,dempsey J. White, Jacquelynn Estes, James Rogers,james Gardner, Jack West, Joel S.trosch, Defendants-appellees, 937 F.2d 604 (4th Cir. 1991)
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 937 F.2d 604 (4th Cir. 1991) Argued March 5, 1991. Decided July 3, 1991
Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Yokum filed a wrongful discharge action in district court alleging that his dismissal was "arbitrary, capricious and not supported by substantial evidence" and that " [t]he failure of the United States Postal Service to provide plaintiff with a meaningful, legitimate internal grievance procedure to review disciplinary actions against him denied plaintiff his constitutional right of due process of law." Yokum attempted to invoke the district court's jurisdiction by relying on a purported "well-recognized non-statutory right of Federal Courts to review Postal Service adverse administrative actions." Complaint, Yokum v. United States Postal Serv. (C/A 88-0353-A), Paragraph 1, Joint Appendix at 34. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on 8 July 1988 and Yokum appealed to this court.
This court in Yokum v. United States Postal Serv., 877 F.2d 276 (4th Cir. 1989) (hereinafter "Yokum I "), affirmed the dismissal of the case. We held there that Chapter 75 of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 et seq. (codified, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. § 1101 note), precludes judicial review of administrative personnel decisions adverse to the interests of nonpreference eligible postal workers such as Yokum. However, in a footnote, it was stated that the court was "express [ing] no opinion on the question whether such employees might maintain civil actions for damages against supervisory officials on claims of constitutional violations" pursuant to Bivens. Yokum argued to the court in Yokum I that he had made a Bivens claim by alleging that "the Postal Service failed to provide him with a meaningful and legitimate internal grievance procedure to review disciplinary actions against him, thereby denying his constitutional right to due process of law." Yokum, 877 F.2d at 281, n. 5. The court noted that the Postal Service's internal grievance procedures have been repeatedly upheld against due process claims by the federal courts and adjudged Yokum's assertion to be "no more than an attempt to reiterate his assertion that the Postal Service's dismissal order was not supported by the evidence." Id.
In Bivens, the Supreme Court created an independent cause of action for monetary damages against federal officials, acting under color of federal law, who violate an individual's constitutional rights. However, the Court specified that a Bivens action may not be maintained in two situations: 1) where Congress has provided an alternative remedy and has indicated its intent, either explicitly or implicitly, that the remedy should be a substitute for recovery directly under the Constitution; Bush, 462 U.S. at 378; Gaj v. United States Postal Serv., 800 F.2d 64, 67 (3d Cir. 1986), and 2) where there are "special factors counseling hestitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress." Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396.
Postal workers are generally exempt from the provisions of the CSRA. 39 U.S.C. § 410(a). An exception to this general rule is found in 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a) (1) which provides that Chapter 75 shall apply to the officers and employees of the Postal Service. 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a) (1). Chapter 75 of the CRSA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7543, provides procedural safeguards for "employees" who have been subjected to adverse personnel actions. Chapter 75 is divided into five subchapters, two of which are relevant to this case. Sub-chapter I governs suspensions of 14 days or less and subchapter II governs more serious adverse actions. Demotion and dismissal from employment are adverse personnel actions covered by subchapter II. The procedural safeguards of subchapter II include appeal to the MSPB, Sec. 7513(d), and ultimately to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Sec. 7703(a) (1),-(b) (1). All Postal Service employees are not entitled to subchapter II's procedural protections, however. Only those postal workers included in the subchapter II definition of "employee" may utilize the subchapter II appeals. Included in the definition of "employee" is a "preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions ... in the United States Postal Service...." Sec. 7511(a) (1) (B) (ii) (Supp.1991). Nonpreference eligible employees of the Postal Service are not included in the definition and therefore cannot utilize the appeals available under subchapter II.
Although not entitled to subchapter II protections, nonpreference eligible Postal Service employees are not without means for addressing grievances. Congress mandated that the Postal Service establish procedures to assure employees protection of their employment rights and provide them with procedures to challenge adverse actions. 39 U.S.C. § 1001(b). Pursuant to the statutory mandate of 39 U.S.C. 1001(b), the Postal Service promulgated the internal grievance procedures found in Part 650 of the Postal Service's Employee and Labor Relations manual. Yokum, 877 F.2d at 277, n. 1. Part 650 "governs internal administrative appeals of personnel decisions adverse to the interests of postal workers who are not otherwise protected by grievance provisions in independent collective bargaining agreements." Id. Pursuant to Part 650, an employee is entitled to a two step appeal:
Royals v. Tisch, 864 F.2d 1565, 1566 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1989). The Part 650 internal grievance procedure has been upheld against due process claims. See Alsbury v. United States Postal Serv., 530 F.2d 852, 854-55 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 828 (1976).
Yokum argues that because Congress failed to provide non-preference eligible postal employees with the right to an independent review of Postal Service decisions that the grievance procedure available to him is not comprehensive and thus he is not preempted from bringing a Bivens action. We do not agree. Congress' action in singling out preference eligible postal employees for subchapter II protection suggests that Congress has provided nonpreference eligible postal employees what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations. United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 450, n. 4 (1988). The fact that the remedial scheme provided for by Congress does not offer the complete relief an employee would like does not entitle him to a Bivens remedy. Chilicky, 487 U.S. at 424; Pinar v. Dole, 747 F.2d 899 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1016 (1985). The comprehensive remedial scheme available to nonpreference eligible postal employees constitutes a "special factor counselling hesitation" and therefore the district court was proper in dismissing Yokum's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.