Ann Farley Donna L. Rambo Cynthia Lee Shanklin v. United States

Citations: 162 F.3d 613; 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 108; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30973; 1998 WL 849749Docket: 97-5152

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; December 9, 1998; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs-Appellants Ann Farley, Donna L. Rambo, and Cynthia Lee Shanklin appealed a district court's dismissal of their tort action against the United States, which was based on alleged retaliation and outrageous conduct by their former employer, the United States Probation Office. The appeal concerns the applicability of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). The district court dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the FTCA did not waive the United States' sovereign immunity for the claims raised, and that jurisdiction was also lacking due to the potential applicability of the FECA. 

Appellants argued that the district court misapplied Oklahoma law and made incorrect factual findings, asserting that subject matter jurisdiction exists as no substantial question regarding the applicability of the FECA exists. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal de novo, focusing on the relationship between the FTCA, which permits tort claims against the United States for employee misconduct, and the FECA, which provides exclusive remedies for work-related injuries. The FECA covers injuries sustained in the performance of duty and preempts other civil actions against the United States for those injuries. The Tenth Circuit ultimately reversed and remanded the case for further consideration on the basis of the jurisdictional arguments raised by the Appellants.

If the Compensation Act applies to an injury, any tort action against the United States for those injuries is preempted, and the courts lack jurisdiction to hear such cases. Specifically, if the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) is applicable, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims must be stayed pending a determination by the Secretary of Labor regarding coverage under the Compensation Act. The Secretary of Labor has exclusive authority to resolve disputes about the scope of the Compensation Act, and their decisions are final and not subject to judicial review. A substantial question regarding Compensation Act coverage exists unless it is certain that the Secretary would find no coverage. In this case, the district court identified a substantial question regarding whether the Compensation Act covers the emotional distress injuries claimed by Appellants, which arose during their duties as probation officers. Historical case law indicates that the Secretary has recognized work-related emotional distress injuries in certain instances, but there are also cases where such claims were not covered.

Consequently, the district court must stay the Tort Claims Act action pending a coverage determination by the Secretary. Should the Secretary determine that the Compensation Act applies, the district court must dismiss the Tort Claims Act action, irrespective of whether benefits under the Compensation Act are awarded. The district court mistakenly chose to dismiss the action instead of staying it, which is deemed the appropriate remedy to prevent the statute of limitations from running out on the Tort Claims Act and leaving plaintiffs without recourse. Furthermore, the district court noted that Appellants did not sufficiently allege a viable tort claim against the United States.

The Compensation Act may replace the Appellants' Tort Claims Act action, potentially removing the district court's jurisdiction to hear the case, rendering the court's assessment of the tort claims premature. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to reinstate the Tort Claims Act suit and hold it in abeyance while Appellants pursue their claim under the Compensation Act. The district court initially dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, prompting a review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The Compensation Act's exclusivity provision protects the government from lawsuits under statutes like the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives sovereign immunity. Appellants argue that the Compensation Act does not cover injuries from intentional torts; however, applicability depends on whether the injury occurred during the employee's duty performance, regardless of whether the act was intentional or negligent. The court distinguishes the current case from Swafford, asserting that the Secretary of Labor holds the authority to determine the scope of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) and will not speculate on its application here. Additionally, a tort claim against the U.S. is barred unless presented to the appropriate agency within two years or if action is initiated within six months of a final agency denial, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b).