Opinion ID: 20408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutional (Bivens) Claims.

Text: 8 The district court's analysis of the plaintiffs' Bivens claims centers on the question of whether such claims are viable in the government-employee and government-employerrelationship. In Bush v. Lucas, 647 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), aff'd, 462 U.S. 367 (1983), this circuit held that Bivens did not apply in the context of the federal employee-employer relationship. The relationship was a special factor that counseled hesitation against the judicial creation of a damage remedy for the deprivation of a federal employee's constitutional rights. See Bush, 647 F.2d at 389. After assuming that the petitioner's constitutional claims had merit and that the civil service remedies were less compensatory than an individual damage remedy, 3 the Supreme Court affirmed this circuit's opinion and noted the following: 9 [W]e do not decide whether or not it would be good policy to permit a federal employee to recover damages from a supervisor who has improperly disciplined him for exercising his First Amendment rights. As we did in Standard Oil, we decline to create a new substantive legal liability without legislative aid and as at the common law, because we are convinced that Congress is in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest would be better served by creating it. 10 Bush, 462 U.S. at 390 (citation omitted). In other words, the Bush Court left it up to Congress to provide the appropriate remedy. 11 Chapters 10 and 12 of the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) set out a comprehensive scheme governing employment relations within the Postal Service. See 39 U.S.C. 1001-11, 1201-09 (1994). Although the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) generally excluded postal employees from its coverage, see 5 U.S.C. 2105(e) (1994), the PRA provided for CSRA coverage for some postal employees, called preference eligible postal employees, who are entitled to avail themselves of the CSRA's procedures for administrative and judicial review of adverse personnel actions. See 39 U.S.C. 1005(a)(4) (1994). 4 For other postal employees, such as the plaintiffs, the Postal Service shall establish procedures guaranteeing them an opportunity for a fair hearing on adverse actions, with representatives of their own choosing. 39 U.S.C. 1001(b) (1994). 5 12 Under the PRA, postal employees have collective bargaining rights. The PRA also provides that employee-management relations are generally subject to the provisions of the Labor Relations Management Act (LRMA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). See 39 U.S.C. 1209(a)-(b) (1994). The collective bargaining agreements may include any procedures for resolution by the parties of grievances and adverse actions arising under the agreement, including procedures culminating in binding third-party arbitration. 39 U.S.C. 1206(b) (1994). The collective bargaining agreement in effect during the actions described herein contained such provisions. 13 In Pipkin v. United States Postal Serv., 951 F.2d 272 (10th Cir. 1991), the court dismissed a postal employee's Bivensclaims, citing its deference to Congress's judgment in creating the collective bargaining agreement system for postal employment disputes. 14 Congress explicitly authorized the USPS to adopt comprehensive binding arbitration provisions in its collective bargaining agreements between the USPS and its employees. The applicable collective bargaining agreement provided grievance procedures, including arbitration, to address plaintiffs' disputes arising from the employment relationship. Because Congress has provided a comprehensive procedure to address postal employees' constitutional claims arising from their employment relationship with the USPS, those arbitration procedures preclude plaintiffs' Bivens claims. 15 Pipkin, 951 F.2d at 275 (citation omitted). See also Eure v. United States Postal Serv., 711 F. Supp. 1365, 1371 (S.D. Miss. 1989) ([B]ecause plaintiffs in their positions as federal employees of the Postal Service had access to the Congressionally approved grievance procedure of the collective bargaining agreement, then it follows that plaintiffs may not maintain their federal constitutional claims against the certain named individual Postal Service officials.). 16 Plaintiffs argue that the procedures contained in their CBA do not constitute alternative procedures which provide meaningful remedies against the Postal Service or the United States. The district court rejected this argument. In Pipkin the court also rejected this argument and emphasized the comprehensive nature of the statutory scheme to address the claims of postal employees. 17 When Congress has acted to create a comprehensive statutory scheme to address a particular class of claims, the courts will not act to create additional judicial remedies, even where a particular litigant does not have a remedy available under the statutory scheme. This is particularly true in federal employment relationships, where Congress has provided a comprehensive civil service scheme to address disputes. 18 951 F.2d at 275 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423 (1988) (When the design of a Government program suggests that Congress has provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations that may occur in the course of its administration, we have not created additional Bivens remedies.); Pereira v. United States Postal Serv., 964 F.2d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 1992) (Pereira's [constitutional] claim lacks merit because the collective bargaining agreement itself, and the concomitant ban on judicial review . . . are themselves generated by statute; they are part of Congress'[s] overall remedial scheme.). 19 We agree with the district court and hold that the PRA (via the plaintiffs' collective bargaining agreements) pre-empts Bivens claims like those asserted in this case. The district court's decision on this issue is affirmed. 20