Opinion ID: 8704898
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The motions to intervene by the unions will be denied

Text: BLET and UTU move to intervene, either as of right or permissively, on the basis of their representation of railroad workers who could be impacted by this decision. The unions argue that disposition of this action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede their ability to protect the interests of their members, who would be forced to choose between protecting the integrity of their CBAs and filing a complaint under FRSA if the Secretary could not rely on the ARB decision. NSR opposes intervention by the unions, arguing that the unions fail to meet the prerequisites for intervention as of right, and have no basis for requesting permissive intervention. The Court determines that neither union has shown that its interest as a collective bargaining overseer is sufficiently related to defending the Secretary’s interpretation of FRSA to merit intervention as of right. Furthermore, to the extent the unions’ interests do relate to this action, the unions do not contend that the Secretary’s representation is inadequate, nor do they contribute additional arguments to those raised by the Secretary. While the unions raise the specter of what interests may be at stake if the Court denies the motion to dismiss, since the Court is granting the motion, that particular argument is irrelevant.
As to permissive intervention, the Court finds that the unions’ interests do not demonstrate that either union has a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action such that permissive intervention would be appropriate. Their respective positions merely support that of the Secretary without adding anything new, and their interests are speculative at best. Therefore, the unions’ motions to intervene are denied. Y. MOTION TO DISMISS The Secretary contends that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, pointing to 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(4), which explicitly authorizes judicial review of final orders of the Secretary only in the courts of appeals. NSR claims that it is entitled to direct review of the ARB decision, a non-final action by the Secretary, by the district court under the doctrine of Leedom v. Kyne. NSR claims that the ARB decision is “in excess of the Secretary’s jurisdiction and delegated powers, and NSR has no other meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its statutory right.” Compl. ¶ 4. The Leedom doctrine provides a narrow exception to statutes that contain an implied preclusion of district court review of administrative action. In Leedom, petitioners challenged a decision of the National Labor Relations Board (“the NLRB” or “the Board”), in which the Board certified a bargaining unit containing both professional and non-professional employees without allowing the professional employees of the unit to vote. Leedom, 358 U.S. at 185, 79 S.Ct. 180. The National Labor Relations Act (“the NLRA”) contains a provision that the NLRB will not certify a collective bargaining unit for such purposes if the unit contains both professional and nonprofessional employees unless a majority of the professional employees vote for inclusion in the unit. 29 U.S.C. § 159(b)(1). The Board did not contest that it “acted in excess of its powers and had thereby worked injury to the statutory rights of the professional employees.” Leedom, 358 U.S. at 187, 79 5.Ct. 180. The NLRA, however, did not provide for any judicial review of the Board’s determination, as a Board order in a certification proceeding was not considered a “final order” subject to review. Id. The Supreme Court held that, under the particular circumstances, the district court had jurisdiction to afford the petitioners a remedy. The Court noted that the district court was not reviewing a decision by the Board made within the Board’s jurisdiction, but was being asked to strike down an order of the Board “made in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the Act.” Id. at 188, 79 S.Ct. 180. The Supreme Court determined that the provision requiring a vote among the professional employees was “clear and mandatory.” Id. In exercising a power that was specifically withheld, the Board “deprived the employees of a ‘right’ assured to them by Congress.” Id. at 189, 79 S.Ct. 180. Furthermore, if the federal courts did not exercise jurisdiction, the professional employees would have no other means within their control by which to protect and enforce the statutory right provided by Congress. Id. at 190, 79 S.Ct. 180. The exception under the Leedom doctrine is extremely narrow. The district court may not invoke its jurisdiction merely because a party alleges that an agency has exceeded its statutory authority. See Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. MCorp Fin., Inc., 502 U.S. 32, 43, 112 S.Ct. 459, 116 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). Under review schemes such as that in 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(4), “where Congress has set out a complex scheme authorizing certain types of review but not others,” and Congress has “explicitly given the district courts review authority” in particular areas, the statute powerfully suggests the intent to preclude district court review under other circumstances. 6 Griffith v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 842 F.2d 487, 494 (D.C.Cir.1988). Therefore, the agency error at stake in a case where the Leedom doctrine applies must be “so extreme” as to be “jurisdictional or nearly so.” Nyunt v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 589 F.3d 445, 449 (D.C.Cir.2009) (citation omitted). “Given that very stringent standard, a Leedom v. Kyne claim is essentially a Hail Mary pass — and in court as in football, the attempt rarely succeeds.” Id. A party seeking judicial review pursuant to Leedom must satisfy two predicates. First, the party must demonstrate that the agency disobeyed a statutory provision that is “clear and mandatory.” Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n AFL-CIO v. Fed. Serv. Impasses Panel, 437 F.3d 1256, 1258 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting Leedom, 358 U.S. at 188, 79 S.Ct. 180). Second, the party must show that, without the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction, it lacks any “meaningful and adequate means of vindieating [its] statutory rights.” Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers, 437 F.3d at 1258. (quoting MCorp, 502 U.S. at 43, 112 S.Ct. 459). Having reviewed the briefing, FRSA, the ARB decision, and the case law, the Court concludes that NSR has failed to satisfy either prong under the Leedom doctrine. A. NSR failed to show that the Secretary disobeyed a statutory provision that is clear and mandatory NSR must show a “clear and mandatory” obligation on the part of the Secretary either to refrain from or to engage in particular conduct, and show that the ARB decision violates that particular obligation. Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers, 437 F.3d at 1263. District court review under the Leedom doctrine may be appropriate when an agency has engaged in a “gross violation” of statutory duties, and when absence of review would result in the “sacrifice or obliteration of a right” created by Congress. Ry. Labor Exec. Ass’n. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 29 F.3d 655, 661 (D.C.Cir.1994) (en banc). Such review is not appropriate if the agency’s interpretation is a “colorable” reading of the statute, even if that reading is not the only one possible. Griffith, 842 F.2d at 494. See also Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers, 437 F.3d at 1264 (noting that both sides raised compelling arguments, which indicated that the “statutory directive” was not “specific and unambiguous”). NSR claims that 49 U.S.C. § 20109(f) imposes a clear and mandatory obligation on the part of the Secretary to bar complaints from employees who have engaged in mandatory arbitration pursuant to the procedures in RLA § 3. NSR further claims that to allow employees who have already engaged in RLA § 3 arbitration to maintain complaints under FRSA would deprive rail carriers of a Congressionallycreated right to be free of such suits. Contrary to NSR’s assertions, the statute is neither specific nor unambiguous. As noted above, at the forefront of the ARB decision was the question of whether an employee who engages in mandatory arbitration for violation of the terms of a CBA who also files a FRSA complaint is “seeking] protection” under FRSA and “another provision of law.” ARB decision at 3. The ARB decision, citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974), explained that “another provision of law” does not encompass grievance procedures pursued under a CBA. ARB decision at 7. In Alexander, the Court considered “under what circumstances, if any, an employee’s statutory right to a trial de novo under Title VII may be foreclosed by prior submission of his claim to final arbitration under the nondiscrimination clause of a collective-bargaining agreement.” Alexander, 415 U.S. at 38, 94 S.Ct. 1011. The Court determined that contractual rights under a CBA were distinct from federal statutory rights, and the rights had “legally independent origins.” Id. at 52-53, 94 S.Ct. 1011. Referencing Alexander, the ARB decision determined that a reading of § 20109(f) allowing retaliation claims to proceed concurrent with collective bargaining grievance procedures would be consistent with the plain meaning of FRSA in light of §§ 20109(g) and (h), which reinforce employee rights (under § 20109(h)) and limit the preemption of other rights of action by an employee (under § 20109(g)). NSR argues that the ARB decision’s reasoning is flawed, citing Norfolk & Western Ry. v. Am. Train Dispatchers Ass’n, 499 U.S. 117, 111 S.Ct. 1156, 113 L.Ed.2d 95 (1991) for the proposition that a railroad employee seeking relief for violation of the terms of a CBA is seeking protection under the RLA, and that a CBA falls under “all other law” as it appears in a statutory immunity provision. Contrary to NSR’s position, the opinion in Norfolk & Western is not entirely inconsistent with that in Alexander, nor is it as determinative as NSR maintains. Norfolk & Western states that the obligations of the RLA “give[ ] force to the carriers’ collective bargaining agreements,” and that the “RLA governs the formation, construction, and enforcement of the labor-management contracts.” Norfolk & Western, 499 U.S. at 131, 111 S.Ct. 1156. In the instant action, as in Norfolk & Western, the RLA provisions for mandatory arbitration of disputes concerning the CBA are procedural, while the substantive provisions at issue come from the CBA itself. NSR’s argument is flawed in other respects. Section 20109(f) states that the employee cannot seek protection under FRSA and another provision of law for “the same allegedly unlawful act of the carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 20109(f). By characterizing the “act” as the dismissal, NSR paints the “act” with a broad enough brush to include two very different factual scenarios with two different legal claims. In Roger’s case, the unlawful act alleged under the FRSA was a dismissal in retaliation for reporting his injury. The unlawful act alleged in his RLA § 3 arbitration was dismissal in violation of his rights under the CBA concerning his responsibility for the accident. The statutory history supports separating the claim of retaliation from the claim of a CBA violation. NSR ignores the different statutory scheme created by the 2007 amendments to FRSA. 7 Until the 2007 amendments, retaliation claims were pursued before an RLA § 3 arbitration board; therefore, retaliation claims and complaints pursuant to an employee’s CBA were pursued in one action. The 2007 amendments to the FRSA were an attempt to “enhance!] administrative and civil remedies for employees” and “to ensure that employees can report their concerns without the fear of possible retaliation or discrimination from employers.” H.R.Rep. No. 110-259 at 348 (2007) (Conf. Rep.), 2007 U.S.C.C.A.N. 119, 180-181. As a part of achieving these goals, the Secretary took over the proceedings related to retaliation claims under FRSA, separating such claims from any claims alleging violations of an employee’s CBA. At the same time, Congress amended the statute with §§ 20109(g) and 20109(h). Under NSR’s reading of the statute, an employee who was dismissed both in violation of his CBA and in retaliation for reporting an injury would be forced to choose between his claim for retaliation under FRSA and his rights under his CBA. As discussed above, Congress’ provisions under §§ 20109(g) and (h) limited the preemption of other rights of action by an employee and reinforced employee rights. It would be highly inconsistent with the 2007 amendments for Congress, by transferring retaliation claims to the Secretary, to limit the ability to engage in RLA arbitration and pursue a separate retaliation claim under FRSA without further clarification. For purposes of resolving the issue of its jurisdiction, this Court need not determine whether or not the ARB’s ruling was correct. It need only determine that it was colorable under the statute, and not in violation of a clear, mandatory directive within the statute. Thus, the Court finds that the Leedom doctrine does not apply. B. NSR has not shown that it lacks meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its statutory rights The second prong that NSR must meet to establish that it is entitled to access to this Court under the Leedom doctrine is that it would be “wholly deprived” of “meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its statutory rights.” Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers, 437 F.3d at 1263. NSR argues that, without a ruling by this Court as to the correctness of the ARB’s decision, it lacks any real possibility of vindicating its right to be free from suit under FRSA after an employee has already pursued mandatory arbitration under RLA § 3. First, because it has been more than 210 days since Roger filed his complaint, and no final decision has been issued by the Secretary, he may withdraw his complaint and seek de novo review by a district court. 49 U.S.C. 20109(d)(3). Roger has not exercised that right as of yet, but NSR claims that, if he does, he will “short-circuit the administrative process.” Pith’s Opp. at 39. NSR claims that it would not be sufficient to argue that the ARB decision was wrongly decided in that case, because the district court could not bind the Secretary to its decision. Furthermore, NSR claims that, even if it were assured of court of appeals review at the end of the administrative process, it would not provide a meaningful and adequate opportunity to obtain relief, because § 20109(f) is meant to protect a railroad from having to go through FRSA investigation in the first place. In short, NSR claims that, if it must proceed in the investigation, it has already lost its right under the statute. First, NSR’s view of its circumstances is too narrow. The question of whether a party is “wholly deprived” of any means of vindicating its statutory rights should be viewed more broadly. In Leedom, there was no scheme in place for review of the agency’s action by any means. 8 On the other hand, in Sturm, Ruger & Company v. Chao, the Court held that Leedom was inapplicable, because “[a]n employer” in general could challenge the contested practice under the statutory review procedure. Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Chao, 300 F.3d 867, 874 (D.C.Cir.2002). Likewise, while NSR may never get the opportunity to challenge the ARB decision before the court of appeals in Roger’s case, it would still have the opportunity to challenge the ARB decision’s interpretation of the statute in another case. NSR may lack clarity on the fate of its claimed statutory rights at this time, but that does not render it “wholly deprived” such that the Leedom doctrine would be appropriate. Furthermore, NSR’s latter argument begs the question, in that the Court would have to assume NSR’s position to be the correct one to believe the investigation to be such an unwarranted burden. NSR has not argued that it would experience irreparable harm if forced to go through with Roger’s FRSA investigation — merely that it would have to proceed with an investigation to prove that it does not have to proceed with an investigation. It cannot be said that the practical effect of making NSR go through with this investigation is to somehow foreclose all access to the courts. Cf. Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 218, 114 S.Ct. 771, 127 L.Ed.2d 29 (1994) (finding that the choice of compliance with the agency action until the review process was complete or the incurrence of penalties that were final and payable only after full review was not so “onerous” or “coercive” as to deny a mine operator of a meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its rights).