O'Connell v. Hove
| Decision Date | 19 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 1079,D,1079 |
| Citation | 22 F.3d 463 |
| Parties | 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2296, 62 USLW 2756, 127 Lab.Cas. P 33,083, 1 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1645 James P. O'CONNELL; Sharon J. Adkisson; Edward R. Albertson; Agee Allen; Helen M. Allen; Charles E. Anderson; William G. Beck; Susan R. Belger; Richard T. Bond; Elizabeth F. Brendler; Anita M. Bucher; Edward R. Campbell; Jonathan B. Chase; Alan I. Cohen; Larry Day; William J. Day; Leroy E. Desoto; David K. Dober; Walter S. Dubridge; Philip W. Eagleton; Frank Estrata; Jule M. Farrar; Myles L. Flynn; Patrick M. Furlong; Thomas F. Gibson; James M. Golden; John P. Greer; Michael P. Hassey; Axel W. Henri; Russel F. Henry; James Hermansen; Don E. Hirsch; Patricia L. Huff; Charles R. Johnson; Curtis Johnson; Laura B. Jones; Joseph Joseph; Kosta M. Jovanovic; Gilbert L. Keith; John A. Kerr; Burton E. Kidd; Erwin J. Kossart; Doris Lacy-Roberts; Daniel J. Mayernik; Scott E. McIntyre; Frank J. Muscillo; Bill Negron; Lawrence J. Nicastro; Russel W. Olson; Scott C. Opdahl; Terry L. Passoni; Philip W. Perry; Brian T. Quinlan; Victor A. Safara; Kathryn M. Sanders; Robert H. Sargent; Bobeck A. Shayegani; John Shelton; William N. Siska; Bruce J. Smith; Gregory N. Stanfill; William C. Stark; James D. Stonecipher; Peter J. Tachis; Donald R. Tucker; Charles Vella-Bonavita; Maria D. Walter; Russel J. White; James D. Woolverton; Frank P. Zito; Stuart R. Adair; Barbara A. Barna; Donald J. Bastis; Linda K. Beresford; George W. Berg; Nurudeen A. Borishade; Monica M. Burke; George E. Burris; Martin A. Capp; Sigmar Chaim; John S. Chiungas; Nancy P. Coats; Alfred B. Coker; Norman T. Cole; Henry B. Cummings; James A. Davis; John T. Dorbant; Peter A. Ecklund; Gwen M. Fournier; Rita L. Fritsch; Carla D. Gallegos; Joseph S. Giaimo; Arthur Gilcrest; Daniel C. Glaspy; Ramon F. Hernandez; Edmund J. Hill; Gary E. Hill; Ann L. Houghton; Kemp B. Johnson; Catherine E. Kennedy; Joann Kishi; Daniel Landron; Henry E. Langeland; Robert W. Langford; Marie B. Lessure; Howard L. Levreau; Paula F. Lyons; Barry L. Madde |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Elaine Kaplan, Washington, DC (Gregory O'Duden, Nat. Treasury Employees Union, of counsel) for plaintiffs-appellants.
Thomas A. Schultz, Washington, DC (Robert G. Clark, Daniel F. Ross, Gregory F. Taylor, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, of counsel) for defendants-appellees.
Before: WALKER, JACOBS, Circuit Judges, and DALY, District Judge. *
Plaintiffs are employees of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") who claim that the FDIC improperly classified their jobs as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201-19 (1982). Upon motion by the FDIC, and after a hearing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Glasser, J.) dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act ("CSRA"), 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7101-35 (1988) requires plaintiffs, all of whom are members of the National Treasury Employees Union (the "Union"), to follow the negotiated grievance procedures set out in the Union's collective bargaining agreement with the FDIC. The employees appeal, and we affirm.
Section 7(a)(1) of the FLSA requires that employees covered by that statute be paid one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay if they work more than forty hours during a work week. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a)(1). However, employees whose work meets certain statutory criteria are exempted from this provision. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213. When such exempt employees of the federal government do work overtime, they are compensated in accordance with the Federal Employment Pay Act ("FEPA"). 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5542 (1982). Plaintiffs allege that the FDIC improperly classified them as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, that they are worse off under the FEPA compensation scheme than they would be under the FLSA, and that they have worked a significant number of overtime hours, or contemplate doing so if the FDIC were to pay the statutorily mandated overtime rates.
As members of the National Treasury Employees' Union, plaintiffs are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the FDIC. Although the agreement provides for comprehensive grievance procedures, none of the appellants have pursued grievance procedures in this case, having chosen instead to litigate their claims in federal district court. It is this choice which raises the jurisdictional issue that is the subject of this appeal.
In a well reasoned memorandum and order, the district court concluded that, under the CSRA, the grievance procedures contained in the collective bargaining agreement provide the exclusive remedy for their claims. O'Connell v. Hove, 821 F.Supp. 862 (E.D.N.Y.1993). Therefore, according to the district court, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' claims. We agree. Because this is a case of first impression in this Circuit we will outline and address the issues raised by plaintiffs in some detail. As the district court noted, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has on several occasions addressed the precise issue of this appeal. See Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1452 (Fed.Cir.) (in banc ), cert. denied, Carter v. Goldberg, 498 U.S. 811, 111 S.Ct. 46, 112 L.Ed.2d 22 (1990); Adams v. United States, 979 F.2d 840 (Fed.Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2441, 124 L.Ed.2d 659 (1993); Aamodt v. United States, 976 F.2d 691 (Fed.Cir.1992); Muniz v. United States, 972 F.2d 1304 (Fed.Cir.1992).
Plaintiffs' claim is rooted in the overtime provision of the FLSA:
Except as otherwise provided ... no employer shall employ any of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Conboy
... ... United States, 79 F.3d 1348, 1356 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Kinzler, 55 F.3d 70, 72 (2d Cir.1995); O'Connell v. Hove, 22 F.3d 463, 468 (2d Cir.1994) ... Appellees ask us to ignore the plain language of Section 1981(c), arguing that the legislative ... ...
-
Keen v. Brown, 3:95cv2396 (JBA).
... ... O'Connell v. Hove, 22 F.3d 463 (2nd Cir.1994). The only district-court opinions reviewed by this Court allowing a right of action to challenge a federal agency's ... ...
-
U.S. v. Kelly
... ... The appropriate starting point for the interpretation of any statute is its language. O'Connell v. Hove, 22 F.3d 463, 468 (2d Cir.1994). See United States v. Trapilo, 130 F.3d 547, 551 (2d Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 18 ... ...
-
Abbott v. U.S.
... ... First, they say, they are different from plaintiffs in other cases such as O'Connell v. Hove, 22 F.3d 463 (2d Cir.1994), because they have actually exhausted their administrative remedies. Secondly, they say, the CSRA procedures failed due ... ...