Greenlaw v. Su

Background

Rosemary Greenlaw sued the U.S. Secretary of Labor, identified in the caption as Julie Su, alleging age and disability discrimination and retaliation. The district court had previously dismissed Greenlaw’s Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. While Greenlaw’s appeal was pending, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued final decisions concerning her appeal. The appeals court then vacated the earlier judgment on those claims and remanded the matter to the district court.

After remand, the district court asked the parties to address what additional administrative proceedings, if any, were required. The Secretary argued that Greenlaw’s claims should be sent back for further Equal Employment Opportunity proceedings and also argued that failure to exhaust deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the jurisdictional argument as to the Title VII claim. It explained that the Supreme Court had since held that Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is a mandatory processing rule, not a limit on a court’s jurisdiction. The court applied the same conclusion to Greenlaw’s Rehabilitation Act claim because Title VII remedies, rights, and procedures apply to that claim. The court also found that the Secretary had not identified a jurisdictional barrier to Greenlaw’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim.

The court noted that the Merit Systems Protection Board had issued final decisions and that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had issued a notice of Greenlaw’s right to file a civil action. The Secretary acknowledged that the agency had not provided Greenlaw with notice of further proceedings under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(b), and also acknowledged that the regulation did not explain how to proceed in circumstances like these. Although the Secretary cited Ninth Circuit authority suggesting a remand for additional agency proceedings and cited a district court decision supporting dismissal, the court found no binding authority requiring remand under the circumstances presented.

Disposition

The court concluded that the Secretary had not established that further administrative proceedings were mandated and held that Greenlaw should be permitted to proceed with her remaining claims. The court declined to dismiss those claims. It stated that no further briefing or hearing was necessary and that a scheduling order would be filed separately.