Opinion ID: 789247
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rulings in Other Circuits

Text: 52 In applying CSRA preclusion to Dotson's case, we recognize that because he is a non-preference eligible exempt employee of the judicial branch, the CSRA not only affords him no damages remedy for the alleged constitutional violations in the termination of his employment; it provides him with no administrative or judicial review of the challenged employment action. We note, however, that when Fausto was decided no non-preference-eligible members of the excepted service were entitled to any administrative or judicial review for challenged employment actions under Chapter 75; thus, Dotson is no worse off now than the plaintiff in Fausto was at that time. 53 In Lee v. Hughes, 145 F.3d at 1275, the Eleventh Circuit confronted a case, like this one, in which a probation officer sought to challenge an adverse employment action. That court concluded, despite the unavailability of any other protections under the CSRA, that Bush, Chilicky, and Fausto warranted preclusion of the Bivens claim. The court explained: 54 [T]he exclusion of certain classes of employees from the remedies provided by the CSRA reflects not congressional silence from which courts may imply that an excluded employee is free to pursue whatever judicial remedies he would have had before enactment of the CSRA, ... but rather congressional intent to deny the excluded employee specific protections otherwise afforded by the Act.... In light of Congress's deliberate exclusion of certain employees from the protections of the CSRA and this country's long-respected separation of powers doctrine, courts should be hesitant to provide an aggrieved plaintiff with a remedy where Congress intentionally has withheld one. 55 Lee v. Hughes, 145 F.3d at 1276 (quoting Fausto, 484 U.S. at 447, 108 S.Ct. 668)(internal citations omitted). 56 The Ninth Circuit has similarly ruled that CSRA preclusion bars Bivens actions by employees of the judicial branch. See Blankenship v. McDonald, 176 F.3d 1192, 1195 (9th Cir.1999). In that case, a federal court reporter alleged that her termination violated due process because it was in retaliation for her testimony at a court EEO hearing. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the CSRA afforded the reporter no effective remedies, id. at 1194; nevertheless, because it concluded that Congress's decision in this regard had not been inadvertent, it declined to recognize a Bivens cause of action, see id. at 1195. 57 We agree with the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits that Congress's omission of review rights for judicial branch employees was not inadvertent and, therefore, precludes pursuit of a Bivens claim. 4 Indeed, Congress's intent on this point can be discerned in three ways. 58