United States DC Circuit

In an employment discrimination action against the U.S. Capitol Police, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where the Capitol Police's administrative appeal process is jurisdictional and thus equitable doctrines, such as vicarious exhaustion, do not apply to excuse compliance with it. However the ruling is reversed in part where: 1) neither the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) nor the procedural rules of the Office of Compliance require in-person attendance by the employee at counseling or mediation; and 2) receipt of written notice of the end of mediation from the Office of Compliance triggered the CAA's 30 to 90-day period for electing whether to pursue judicial or administrative relief and demonstrated the employee's completion of counseling and mediation.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/08/2009
• Decided 07/31/2009
• Published 08/03/2009

Judges

• Before SENTELLE, Chief Judge, GINSBURG and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States DC Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Lenore C. Garon argued the cause for appellants.   With him on the briefs were Joseph D. Gebhardt and Charles W. Day, Jr., Peter Ames Eveleth, General Counsel, and William Wachter, Attorney, were on the brief for amicus curiae Office of Compliance in support of appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Harry B. Roback, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee.   With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney.  Frederick M. Herrera, Attorney, United States Capitol Police Board, entered an appearance.