United States v. Fausto

1988-03-21

Headline: Ruling blocks many nonveteran excepted‑service federal workers from suing for backpay in the Claims Court, upholding the Civil Service Reform Act’s limits and forcing disputes into agency grievance systems.

Holding: The Civil Service Reform Act bars nonveteran excepted‑service employees from pursuing Claims Court backpay suits under the Back Pay Act for suspensions covered by Chapter 75.

Real World Impact:

Blocks excepted‑service nonveterans from suing in Claims Court for backpay over suspensions.
Directs disputes into agency grievance procedures and MSPB routes where available.
Reduces court access for certain federal employees seeking backpay relief.

Topics: government employee rights, back pay claims, agency discipline, grievance procedures, civil service rules

Summary

Background

Joseph Fausto was an employee of the Fish and Wildlife Service who was initially removed and later given a 30‑day suspension for unauthorized use of a government vehicle. He said the agency failed to tell him about its grievance procedures and later sought backpay under the Back Pay Act in the Claims Court after an internal review reduced the penalty to a suspension and offered limited backpay. Lower courts split: the Claims Court dismissed his suit as barred by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), but the Federal Circuit allowed the Claims Court action to proceed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the CSRA’s new, comprehensive review system implicitly bars Claims Court suits by nonveteran excepted‑service employees for suspensions covered by Chapter 75. The majority said the CSRA creates an integrated framework that deliberately excludes nonpreference excepted‑service employees from Chapter 75’s administrative and judicial review, and that allowing Claims Court suits would undermine the Act’s structure and the MSPB/Federal Circuit review scheme. The Court relied on the statute’s text, structure, and precedents about identifying congressional intent to preclude review, and reversed the Federal Circuit.

Real world impact

The decision means many nonveteran excepted‑service employees cannot bring Back Pay Act suits in the Claims Court for suspensions covered by Chapter 75; their remedies lie in agency procedures and in the review routes Congress provided. The ruling resolves the specific dispute in Fausto’s favor for the Government and narrows court access for similarly situated workers.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun concurred. Justice Stevens (joined by Brennan and Marshall) dissented, arguing Congress did not clearly intend to remove pre‑existing court remedies and that the decision improperly implies repeal of earlier rights.