Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 09-5291
CASSANDRA M. PAYNE,
APPELLANT
v.
David A. Branch argued the cause and filed the brief for
appellant.
II
1
See, e.g., Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 (“A
person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely
affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a
relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”); Securities Act
of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a) (“Any person aggrieved by an order of the
[Securities and Exchange] Commission may obtain a review of such
order . . . in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.”); Hobbs Administrative Orders Review Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2344 (“Any party aggrieved by [a] final order [of specified agencies]
may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order
in the court of appeals wherein venue lies.”).
2
See, e.g., Guard Publishing Co. v. NLRB, 571 F.3d 53, 58 (D.C.
Cir. 2009) (reviewing an employer’s challenge to only the unfavorable
portions of an NLRB ruling); Zacharias v. SEC, 569 F.3d 458, 462
(D.C. Cir. 2009) (reviewing one of three parts of an SEC ruling); CF
Indus. Inc. v. STB, 255 F.3d 816, 819 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (reviewing
only those parts of the STB’s ruling that the petitioner appealed).
7
3
See Appellee’s Br. 6 (“If a complainant files more than one
complaint, the EEO is required to consolidate them, even if the
complaints are unrelated.”) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.606); see also
EEOC, EEO Management Directive 110, at 5-13 & n.4 (Nov. 9, 1999)
(requiring consolidation of an employee’s complaints, “[e]ven if the
complaints are unrelated,” because “their resolution in a single
proceeding will make better use of agency and Commission
resources”).
9
4
See Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub. L. No.
92-261, 86 Stat. 103.
5
As the Supreme Court noted, the court of appeals’ view was,
essentially, that:
had the same right as the latter to a trial de novo. The Court’s
exposition of the legislative history made this clear, explaining
that “equal treatment of private-sector and federal-sector
complainants” meant that both “were entitled to plenary
adjudication of their claims by a federal district court, rather
than mere appellate review on a substantial-evidence basis
following agency adjudication.” Chandler, 425 U.S. at 857.7
Title VII “through appropriate remedies . . . [and to] issue such rules,
regulations, orders and instructions as it deems necessary and
appropriate”), with id. § 2000e-5 (authorizing the EEOC to use only
“informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion” with
private employers).
7
As the Supreme Court noted, the full text of the provision
affording federal employees the right to file a “civil action” states that
an aggrieved employee “may file a civil action as provided in section
2000e-5.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (emphasis added); see Chandler,
425 U.S. at 845. Section 2000e-5, in turn, is the civil action provision
for private-sector employees, which the Court had previously held
“accords private-sector employees the right to de novo consideration
of their Title VII claims.” Chandler, 425 U.S. at 844 (citing
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 425 U.S. 36 (1974)).
13
8
The government also cites cases from other circuits that reached
the same result as Scott. See Timmons v. White, 314 F.3d 1229 (10th
Cir. 2003); see also Laber v. Harvey, 438 F. 3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006).
Like Scott, these cases are inapposite for the reasons discussed below.
14
and the district court was correct to dismiss that claim. See Artis
v. Greenspan, 158 F.3d 1301, 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1998).9
III
So ordered.
9
Payne’s citation to Saksenasingh v. Sec’y of Educ., 126 F.3d 347
(D.C. Cir. 1997), does not support her contention that she should be
relieved of the obligation to exhaust her administrative remedies.
Saksenasingh, which addressed exhaustion in the context of the breach
of a settlement agreement, did not discuss the requirement that unfiled
“Title VII claims must arise from the administrative investigation that
can reasonably be expected to follow the charge of discrimination.”
Park, 71 F.3d at 907 (quotation marks omitted).