Court Opinion

ID: 9455269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:17:12.370636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:32.078757
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree that the statute of limitations here in issue is tolled “once an employee invokes his contactual grievance remedies in a constructive effort to seek a ‘private settlement of his complaint.’ ” In this connection I would emphasize the presence of the word “constructive”. I also agree that the District Court could grant appropriate relief preliminarily. Therefore, as to the merits of this litigation, the opinion is unanimous.
I feel constrained to say, however, that I respectfully disagree with the statement appearing at Page 4 of the opinion that it is “the duty of the courts to make sure the Act works”. In the interpretation of statutes the courts are required to give due consideration to the intent of Congress, and not to frustrate that intent. In my view it is never the duty or the concern of the courts “to make sure the Act works”. Under our Constitutionally ordained form of government, whether an Act works or fails is the concern of the Executive or of the Legislature, or both — not the courts. I, therefore, agree to the interpretations herein given because I think they are legally correct, not because there is any judicial duty to rescue an Act of Congress from some lack of utility which Congress, if it so desires, has the clear power to correct.