Kloeckner v. Solis

Last updated
Kloeckner v. Solis
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 2, 2012
Decided December 10, 2012
Full case nameCarolyn M. Kloeckner v. Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor
Docket no. 11-184
Citations568 U.S. 41 ( more )
133 S. Ct. 596; 184 L. Ed. 2d 433; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 9420; 116 FEP Cases 1153; 81 U.S.L.W. 4018
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior Motion to transfer granted, Kloeckner v. Solis, (D.D.C., May 15, 2009); dismissed, No. 4:09-CV-804, 2010 WL 582590 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 18, 2010); affirmed, 639 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 565 U.S. 1152(2012).
Holding
A federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board violates an antidiscrimination statute listed in §7702(a)(1) of the Civil Service Reform Act should seek judicial review in district court, not the Federal Circuit, regardless whether the MSPB decided her case on procedural grounds or on the merits. Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityKagan, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
5 U.S.C.   § 7702(a)(1) (Civil Service Reform Act of 1978)

Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving federal employee grievance procedures under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. [1] The issue was whether a so-called "mixed case" involving both wrongful termination and discrimination claims should be appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board to a federal district court or to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Contents

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue and ruled unanimously, in an opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, that the statute clearly provided for appeal to a district court in such cases.

Background of the case

In 2006, Carolyn Kloeckner was dismissed from her position in the United States Department of Labor in St. Louis as an employee benefits investigator. Prior to her dismissal, she had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that she had suffered workplace discrimination due to her age and gender. In July 2007, the EEOC terminated proceedings without issuing a judgement and referred it back to the Department of Labor, which affirmed the termination of Kloeckner and claimed she could file an appeal within 30 days to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Kloeckner then filed an appeal with the MSPB, which was created under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to deal with employment decisions of federal agencies, within the 30-day time limit in November 2007. However, the MSPB declared the appeal as untimely and dismissed it on procedural grounds.

Lower court proceedings

Kloeckner then filed a civil complaint in the District Court for the District of Columbia, as her lawyer was from there. The Federal Government then successfully had the venue changed to the federal district court in St. Louis then immediately filed for a dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. The Civil Service Reform Act directs that cases relating to employee termination are to be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit but cases relating to discrimination are referred to a federal district court. Because Kloeckner's case had elements of both, it was classified as a "mixed case" and the federal district court judge noted that there was a circuit split on this issue but judged that jurisdiction to rule on this case was exclusively in the hands of a court of the Eighth Circuit. [2] The Eighth Circuit upheld this ruling on appeal stating that because the MPSB had never resolved the issue of workplace discrimination, only a Federal Circuit Court could rule on the case. [3]

Opinion of the Court

JUSTICE KAGAN: Ms. Harrington, would you agree that this is a remarkably strange way of Congress trying to accomplish this objective? I mean, if Congress were really saying we don't want procedural determinations to go to the district court, that's a very easy thing to say. Congress does not need to ... involve six different cross-references and unnatural reading of statutory language ... It just seems like if Congress wanted what you say it wanted, Congress would not have done it in this extremely complicated and backhanded way.

—Oral Argument Tr. 43:21-44:10

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and remanded to the district court. This applies in all cases involving discrimination issues, whether the cases were decided on merit or procedure. [1] The Court criticized the federal government's argument as "construct[ing] such an obscure path to such a simple result", noting that "it would be hard to dream up a more roundabout way of bifurcating judicial review of the MSPB's rulings in mixed cases". [4]

Reactions

Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, praised the ruling as "provid[ing] a much more clear and rational path" for cases that might otherwise have "ping pong[ed]" through the judicial system, [5] and that the Court's ruling affords discrimination plaintiffs "broader appeal rights." [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals.

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides a private cause of action to victims of employment discrimination. The Court ruled that Title VII's "employee-numerosity requirement," which limits potential defendants to those maintaining at least fifteen employees, is not a limit on a court's jurisdiction to hear Title VII claims. The requirement is instead a substantive element of a Title VII claim, which means that a defendant must raise the issue prior to verdict or the requirement will be waived.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an administrative agency may, in some cases, exert jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Human resource management in public administration concerns human resource management as it applies specifically to the field of public administration. It is considered to be an in-house structure that ensures unbiased treatment, ethical standards, and promotes a value-based system.

The ministerial exception, sometimes known as the "ecclesiastical exception," is a legal doctrine in the United States barring the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious institutions' employment relationships with its "ministers." As explained by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., the exception is drawn from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and seeks to both (1) safeguard religious groups' "freedom. .. to select their own ministers," a principle rooted in the Free Exercise Clause, and (2) prevent "government involvement in [] ecclesiastical decisions," a prohibition stemming from the Establishment Clause. When applied, the exception operates to give religious institutions an affirmative defense when sued for discrimination by employees who qualify as "ministers;" for example, female priests cannot sue the Catholic church to force their hiring. However, exactly which types of employees should qualify as a "ministers," and thus how broadly the exception should apply, was the subject of recent litigation before the Supreme Court.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court unanimously ruled that federal discrimination laws do not apply to religious organizations' selection of religious leaders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2012 term, which began October 1, 2012 and concluded October 6, 2013.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held, 6–3, that the first-sale doctrine applies to copies of copyrighted works lawfully made abroad.

Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on how two federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), relate to whether employment contracts can legally bar employees from collective arbitration. The Supreme Court had consolidated three cases, Epic Systems Corp. v Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris (16-300), and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (16-307). In a 5–4 decision issued in May 2018, the Court ruled that arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration and prohibiting class action lawsuits are enforceable under the FAA, regardless of allowances set out within the NLRA.

Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case which ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the result of the employment decision.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ministerial exception of federal employment discrimination laws. The case extends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which created the ministerial exception based on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, asserting that federal discrimination laws cannot be applied to leaders of religious organizations. The case, along with the consolidated St. James School v. Biel, both arose from rulings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found that federal discrimination laws do apply to others within a religious organization that serve an important religious function but lack the title or training to be considered a religious leader under Hosanna-Tabor. The religious organization challenged that ruling on the basis of Hosanna-Tabor. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 decision on July 8, 2020 that reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, affirming that the principles of Hosanna-Tabor, that a person can be serving an important religious function even if not holding the title or training of a religious leader, satisfied the ministerial exception in employment discrimination.

Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson, 550 U.S. 511 (2007) is a United States Supreme court case in which the court held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to review a wrongful termination suit brought against United States Senator Mark Dayton, where the lower courts did not rule on the constitutionality of the Act. This case was the first Speech or Debate Clause case the Supreme Court took up since 1979.

Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning when, if ever, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Court held that the "look through" approach established by the Court's decision in Vaden v. Discover Bank "does not apply to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA."

References

  1. 1 2 Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012).
  2. ↑ Kloeckner v. Solis, No. 09-804, 2010 WL 582590 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 18, 2010).
  3. ↑ Kloeckner v. Solis, 639 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2011).
  4. ↑ Kloeckner, 568 U.S. at ___, slip op. at 10.
  5. ↑ Hicks, Josh (December 11, 2012), "Court makes bias complaint process simpler for federal workers", The Washington Post , retrieved July 9, 2013.
  6. ↑ Katz, Eric (December 11, 2012), "Supreme Court: Feds can challenge MSPB decisions in federal district court", Government Executive , retrieved July 9, 2013.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.