Opinion ID: 6330369
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background on the CSRA

Text: The CSRA established “the comprehensive and exclusive procedures for settling work-related controversies between federal civil-service employees and the federal government.” Rollins v. Marsh, 937 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir. 1991). Before the CSRA, administrative and judicial review under the civil service system was “haphazard,” resulting from the “outdated patchwork of statutes and rules built up over almost a century.” United States 5 Case: 22-40043 Document: 00516272475 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/07/2022 No. 22-40043 v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 444 (1988) (quoting S. Rep. No. 95–969, at 3 (1978)). This pre-existing system drew “widespread” criticism, including that it produced inconsistent judicial decisions on similar matters due to the “concurrent jurisdiction, under various bases of jurisdiction, of district courts in all Circuits and the Court of Claims.” Id. at 445. In response, Congress enacted the CSRA, which imposed “an integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review, designed to balance the legitimate interests of the various categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and efficient administration.” Id. “Under the [CSRA], certain federal employees may obtain administrative and judicial review of specified adverse employment actions.” Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1, 5 (2012). “Subchapter II of Chapter 75 governs review of major adverse actions taken against employees ‘for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.’” Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. §§ 7503(a), 7513(a)). These provisions apply to employees in the competitive service and to certain excepted service employees. 2 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1). They provide procedural protections when eligible employees face major adverse actions, which includes removals, suspensions for more than fourteen days, pay or grade reductions, and furloughs lasting thirty days or less. Id. § 7512. 2 The CSRA provides three general categories of civil service employees: Senior Executive Service employees, competitive service employees, and excepted service employees. Elgin, 567 U.S. at 5 n.1. Senior Executive Service employees are high ranking employees who do not require Presidential appointment or Senate confirmation. Id. “Competitive service employees . . . are all other Executive Branch employees whose nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate are not required and who are not specifically excepted from the competitive service by statute,” along with certain other included employees. Id. (alteration omitted) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2102(a)(1)). Employees “who are not in the Senior Executive Service or in the competitive service” are excepted service employees. Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2103(a)). 6 Case: 22-40043 Document: 00516272475 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/07/2022 No. 22-40043 The CSRA distinguishes between employees facing “proposed” adverse action and those who have already suffered adverse action. See 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b), (d). Employees facing “proposed” action are entitled to notice, an opportunity to respond, legal representation, and written reasons supporting the employing agency’s decision. Id. § 7513(b). Once an employing agency finalizes an adverse action, however, the aggrieved employee may appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”). Id. § 7513(d). If the employee prevails on appeal, the MSPB can order the agency to comply with its decision and award “reinstatement, backpay, and attorney’s fees.” Elgin, 567 U.S. at 6 (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 1204(a)(2), 7701(g)). “An employee who is dissatisfied with the MSPB’s decision is entitled to judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” under § 7703. Id. at 6. The Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction over such appeals is “exclusive.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). If an employee appeals to the Federal Circuit, then that court must “review the record and hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions” that are “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(1)–(3). This remedial scheme is “elaborate,” establishing “in great detail the protections and remedies applicable to” adverse personnel actions against federal employees, “including the availability of administrative and judicial review.” Fausto, 484 U.S. at 443. The Supreme Court has thus explained that, “[g]iven the painstaking detail with which the CSRA sets out the method for covered employees to obtain review of adverse employment actions, it is fairly discernible that Congress intended to deny such employees an additional avenue of review in district court.” Elgin, 567 U.S. at 11–12. 7 Case: 22-40043 Document: 00516272475 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/07/2022 No. 22-40043 In Elgin, the Court considered an attempt by former federal employees to “carve out an exception to CSRA exclusivity for facial or asapplied constitutional challenges to federal statutes.” Id. at 12. In rejecting that attempt, the Court emphasized that the CSRA’s text and structure demonstrated that “[t]he availability of administrative and judicial review under the CSRA generally turns on the type of civil service employee and adverse employment action at issue,” not whether a challenged action is constitutionally authorized. Id. at 12–13. The CSRA’s purpose—to “creat[e] an integrated scheme of review”—further confirmed that “the statutory review scheme is exclusive.” Id. at 13. Thus, the Court concluded that “the CSRA provides the exclusive avenue to judicial review when a qualifying employee challenges an adverse employment action by arguing that a federal statute is unconstitutional.” Id. at 5. This court has also recognized that the CSRA precludes district court adjudication of federal statutory and constitutional claims. 3 3 See, e.g., Gremillion v. Chivatero, 749 F.2d 276, 279 (5th Cir. 1985) (dismissing an IRS employee’s Bivens suit because the employee had access to a comprehensive administrative remedial system established by the CSRA); Palermo v. Rorex, 806 F.2d 1266, 1270–71 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that a federal employee cannot seek damages for an unconstitutional adverse personnel action, even though the administrative review system would not allow plaintiff complete recovery); Rollins v. Marsh, 937 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that a federal employee’s FTCA claims were precluded by the CSRA); Morales v. Dep’t of the Army, 947 F.2d 766, 769 (5th Cir. 1991) (dismissing an employee’s suit because all of the employee’s claims were personnel decisions arising out of his relationship with the federal government and were therefore controlled by Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983), and Rollins, 937 F.3d at 139); Grisham v. United States, 103 F.3d 24, 26 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that a federal employee’s First Amendment and FTCA claims were precluded by the CSRA); Tubesing v. United States, 810 F.3d 330, 332 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding that a federal employee’s FTCA claims were precluded by the CSRA); Griener v. United States, 900 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding that a part-time federal employee’s FTCA claim was precluded by the CSRA). 8 Case: 22-40043 Document: 00516272475 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/07/2022 No. 22-40043