Eeoc v. Flra
Headline: Court declines to decide whether a union can require a federal agency to follow OMB Circular A-76, dismissing review because the agency failed to raise key legal objections earlier.
Holding: The Court dismissed its review and refused to decide the merits because the EEOC failed to raise its principal objections before the FLRA and the Court of Appeals, so the issues are not properly before the Court.
- Limits Supreme Court review of agency labor disputes when new arguments were not raised earlier.
- Leaves contracting-out rules unsettled for federal agencies and unions.
- Encourages parties to raise issues first before the FLRA.
Summary
Background
A federal employees union proposed that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (a federal agency) agree to follow OMB Circular A-76, which sets rules for contracting out work. The EEOC refused to bargain, saying the proposal intruded on management’s reserved rights. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (the agency that resolves bargaining disputes) found the proposal negotiable, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed that result.
Reasoning
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the EEOC advanced several new objections it had not pressed before the Authority or the Court of Appeals. The Court relied on a statutory rule that bars courts from considering issues not raised before the Authority unless extraordinary circumstances exist. Because the EEOC did not show such circumstances and the Authority had not explicitly waived the bar, the Court declined to address the merits of whether the Circular counts as an "applicable law" or whether alleged violations would be grievable under the statute.
Real world impact
The Supreme Court did not resolve whether unions can force agencies to follow Circular A-76 or whether alleged violations are grievable. The decision leaves those substantive disputes to the FLRA, the courts of appeals, or future cases. It also underscores that parties should present important legal arguments to the FLRA and the Court of Appeals before seeking review here; otherwise the Court may refuse to decide the merits.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices White and Stevens dissented. Justice Stevens argued the Court should reach the merits and would have found that the Circular does not limit management rights, reversing the lower court judgment.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?