Goodwin v. Veterans Health Administration

Background

Dina L. Goodwin proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without paying filing fees in advance. She alleged that the Veteran’s Health Administration hired her as a Dietary “Health Tech” and that she signed an employment agreement before beginning work on February 12, 2024. After receiving several paychecks, she concluded that her hourly pay did not match the annual salary stated in the agreement. She contacted Human Resources, which allegedly said a mistake had been made and directed her to ask her union, the American Federation of Government Employees, to file a grievance. Goodwin alleged that the union refused to represent her.

Goodwin claimed that the Veteran’s Health Administration breached the employment agreement and sought back pay, interest, and the hourly rate she believed the agreement required. She also named the union because she believed it should have accepted and pursued her grievance. She invoked the Ninth Amendment and federal-question jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing lawsuits against the United States, its agencies, and federal employees acting in their official capacities unless the government has clearly waived that immunity. Without a waiver, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the claim.

The court concluded that the Civil Service Reform Act provides the exclusive administrative remedies for Goodwin’s federal employment claims. The Act allows certain federal employees to seek review through the Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Judicial review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision is exclusively in the Federal Circuit. Goodwin did not allege that she pursued review through the Office of Personnel Management or appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court therefore dismissed her claims against the Veteran’s Health Administration without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that it was unclear whether Goodwin was a probationary employee, but did not resolve that issue.

As to the American Federation of Government Employees, the court treated Goodwin’s allegation as a claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation. It ruled that a federal employee does not have a private cause of action directly against the union for that alleged breach. Instead, such a charge must be filed with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The court dismissed the claim against the union for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court separately noted that the Ninth Amendment is not an independent source of substantive rights. Because the defects in the complaint could not be fixed by amendment, the court declined to give Goodwin permission to amend it.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the claim-specific discussion, it dismissed the claims against the Veteran’s Health Administration without prejudice and dismissed the claim against the American Federation of Government Employees for failure to state a claim. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Goodwin permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case.