Opinion ID: 212988
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preemptive/Exclusive Federal Remedies

Text: Because Mr. Pretlow was a federal employee, his claims implicate three distinct lines of federal preemption/remedial exclusivity. Insofar as he complains 3 The United States Attorney certified that defendants “were acting within the scope of their employment as employees of the United States at all times relevant to the allegations in th[is] case.” R. Vol. 1 at 112. This certification is prima facie evidence on the point that Mr. Pretlow bore the burden of rebutting. Richman v. Straley, 48 F.3d 1139, 1145 (10th Cir. 1995). His conclusory allegations of improper motive failed to do so. See, e.g., Harrison v. United States, 287 F. App’x 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2008). -4- of discrimination and associated retaliatory conduct, his exclusive remedy is provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, as the district court recognized. See Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835 (1976). This precludes claims asserted under the civil rights statutes, see Ford v. West, 222 F.3d 767, 772-73 (10th Cir. 2000); directly under the Constitution, Belhomme v. Widnall, 127 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 1997); and under state anti-discrimination law, Rivera v. Heyman, 157 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir. 1998); Schroder v. Runyon, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1279 (D. Kan. 1998), aff’d, No. 98-3128, 1998 WL 694518, at  (10th Cir. Oct. 6, 1998) (unpub.). Insofar as Mr. Pretlow asserts employment-related claims based on conduct distinct from the discrimination and retaliation addressed by Title VII, there is another source of federal preemption: the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (codified, as amended, in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.). The CSRA established a comprehensive scheme for reviewing federal-personnel actions that preempts other federal and state claims complaining of prohibited employment practices and precludes claims asserted directly under the Constitution. See Steele v. United States, 19 F.3d 531, 532-33 (10th Cir. 1994); Petrini v. Howard, 918 F.2d 1482, 1483-85 (10th Cir. 1990). In particular, Mr. Pretlow’s whistleblowing allegations implicate this preemption principle in light of the provisions added to the CSRA by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA), Pub. L. No. 101-12, 103 Stat. 16 (1989) (codified -5- in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.). See Richards v. Kiernan, 461 F.3d 880, 885 (7th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases recognizing “that the CSRA provides the exclusive remedy for claims brought pursuant to the WPA”). Even if state law provides whistleblowing protections, cf. Wilburn v. Mid-South Health Dev., Inc., 343 F.3d 1274, 1278 (10th Cir. 2003) (discussing Oklahoma cause of action for wrongful discharge based on retaliation for whistleblowing), a federal employee like Mr. Pretlow must look solely to the remedy provided in the CSRA, see, e.g., Steele, 19 F.3d at 532-33 (holding whistleblower’s claims of retaliation involved activities covered, and hence preempted by, CSRA). Finally, insofar as Mr. Pretlow asserts tort claims against the United States (that are not otherwise preempted by Title VII or the CSRA), the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provides the exclusive remedy. See Franklin Sav. Corp.v. United States (In re Franklin Sav. Corp.), 385 F.3d 1279, 1286-87 (10th Cir. 2004). This is true even though Mr. Pretlow did not name the United States in his pleadings. When, as here, federal employees are sued in tort for actions taken within the scope of their employment, the FTCA affords the employees absolute immunity and requires the plaintiff to proceed against the United States, whose sovereign immunity is waived in certain limited respects for this purpose. Salmon v. Schwarz, 948 F.2d 1131, 1141-42 (10th Cir. 1991) (explaining effect of amendment to FTCA made by Federal Employees’ Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-694, 102 Stat. 4563 (1988)). -6- With this understanding of the principles of preemption and remedial exclusivity implicated by the claims asserted in Mr. Pretlow’s pleadings, we now consider the substance and proper disposition of those claims.