Carroll v. U.S.

Decision Date16 December 1983
Docket NumberNo. 81-1540,81-1540
Citation721 F.2d 155
Parties115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2279 Patricia C. CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion June 20, 1983, 5 Cir., 1983, 707 F.2d 836)

Before INGRAHAM, REAVLEY and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Treating the suggestion for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for rehearing is granted. The intervening decision by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Lucas, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983), requires the recall of our original opinion.

In Bush v. Lucas, the Supreme Court declined "to authorize a new nonstatutory damages remedy for federal employees whose First Amendment rights are violated by their superiors," because the claims there presented arose out of "an employment relationship governed by comprehensive procedural and substantive provisions." Id., --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2406, 76 L.Ed. at 651. Bush v. Lucas involved an employee complaining of an adverse personnel action allegedly triggered by public statements of the employee. Administrative remedies were available and were exercised. The instant case involves a former employee who complains of mistreatment in reemployment because of union activity during the prior period of employment. A measure of administrative remedies was available and was exercised.

We cannot make a principled distinction between an employee and a former employee seeking re-employment, in the context as here presented, sufficient to base a holding that the teachings of Bush v. Lucas do not control. We consider Bush v. Lucas dispositive.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kotarski v. Cooper
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 16 Septiembre 1986
    ...Because the promotion was temporary, the employee's administrative remedies were no greater than Kotarski's. See also Carroll v. United States, 721 F.2d 155 (5th Cir.1983) (on rehearing) (Bush precludes Bivens action for former employee seeking reinstatement and back-pay; administrative rem......
  • Heaney v. U.S. Veterans Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 11 Abril 1985
    ...court dismissed his claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the authority of Carroll v. United States, 721 F.2d 155 (5th Cir.1983), holding that a measure of administrative remedies was available to Heaney and that his damages action was accordingly preclud......
  • Dailey v. Carlin, 85-753C(6).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 25 Febrero 1987
    ...the employee's administrative remedies were no greater than those of plaintiff in the present suit. See also, Carroll v. United States, 721 F.2d 155 (5th Cir.1983) (Bush precludes Bivens action by former employee seeking re-employment who only had "a measure" of administrative remedies), ce......
  • Gremillion v. Chivatero, 84-3121
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 2 Enero 1985
    ...731 F.2d 754, 757 (11th Cir.1984); Vest v. United States Dep't of Interior, 729 F.2d 1284, 1286 (10th Cir.1984); Carroll v. United States, 721 F.2d 155, 156 (5th Cir.1983); Broussard v. United States Postal Serv., 674 F.2d 1103, 1112-13 & n. 7 (5th Cir.1982); Dynes v. Army Air Force Exchang......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT