Source: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1651489.html
Timestamp: 2014-04-23 18:28:45
Document Index: 362256567

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 702', '§ 1346', '§ 2302', '§ 7521', '§ 7521', '§ 2302', '§ 2301']

KRAFSUR v. DAVENPORT, No. 13–5598., December 04, 2013 - US 6th Circuit | FindLaw
KRAFSUR v. DAVENPORT
Gerald I. KRAFSUR, United States Administrative Law Judge, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Michael DAVENPORT, individually and in his capacity as Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge; and Social Security Administration, Defendants–Appellees.
No. 13–5598.
Argued: Nov. 21, 2013. -- December 04, 2013
Before: SUTTON and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; DOW, District Judge .*
ARGUED:Charlton R. DeVault, Jr., Kingsport, TN, for Appellant. Cecil VanDevender, United States Attorneys Office, Nashville, TN, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:Charlton R. DeVault, Jr., Kingsport, TN, for Appellant. Cecil VanDevender, United States Attorneys Office, Nashville, TN, Mary Ann Sloan, Dennis R. Williams, John C. Stoner, Brian Seinberg, Shirley Lee Sohrn, Social Security Administration, Atlanta, GA, for Appellees.
OPINIONClaiming that his employer violated the United States Constitution in disciplining him, a federal employee filed this lawsuit in federal district court. In doing so, he bypassed a system set up by the Civil Service Reform Act for addressing the personnel complaints of federal employees, prompting this question: Is the Act's personnel-grievance process exclusive?I.Gerald Krafsur, a federal administrative law judge, hears social security disability claims. Among other responsibilities, he decides how much to award successful claimants in attorney's fees. Judge Krafsur alleges that Michael Davenport, the chief judge in his office, told him that his fee awards were too low. Krafsur's refusal to start making higher awards allegedly prompted Davenport to reprimand him, deny him leave and withhold his paychecks. Krafsur complained about Davenport's actions to the Office of Special Counsel, an agency that handles grievances from federal employees. Before the Special Counsel could respond, however, Krafsur went to federal district court.Krafsur claimed in court that Davenport's actions violated the First and Fifth Amendments. He sued Davenport under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which creates a cause of action against federal officers for constitutional violations. 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). And he sued the Social Security Administration under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Tucker Act, which authorize lawsuits against the United States for (among other things) constitutional violations. 5 U.S.C. § 702; 28 U.S.C. § 1346. The district court dismissed Krafsur's lawsuit on the ground that the remedial framework established by the Civil Service Reform Act is exclusive.II.A.Before Congress enacted the Civil Service Reform Act in 1978, a jumble of statutes and executive orders governed the resolution of federal employees' complaints about the workplace. The Act replaced this patchwork with a coherent system of administrative and judicial review. The new system handles all “personnel actions,” a capacious term defined to include appointments, transfers, any “disciplinary or corrective action,” “any ․ significant change in duties, responsibilities, or working conditions,” and much else besides. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2). The extent of available review turns on the severity of the personnel action and the rank of the employee.Generally speaking, the Act divides covered actions into two categories: adverse actions and prohibited personnel practices. See Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 175 (D.C.Cir.1983) (Scalia, J.). Adverse actions are the most serious the government may take against its employees. For administrative law judges, these include removal, suspension, reduction in grade, reduction in pay and some furloughs. 5 U.S.C. § 7521. The Act entitles an employee facing an adverse action to a formal hearing before the Merit Systems Protection Board and if necessary an appeal to the Federal Circuit. Id. §§ 7521, 7703.Prohibited personnel practices are less serious than adverse actions. The Act defines this category broadly. It includes violations of “any law, rule, or regulation implementing, or directly concerning, ․ merit system principles,” id. § 2302(b)(12), which in turn entitle employees to “fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management,” to insist upon “proper regard for ․ constitutional rights,” and to prohibit “arbitrary action,” id. § 2301(b). An employee faced with a prohibited personnel practice must first c