green
Positive treatment
14.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCloud v. Potter
It is now well settled, Title VII is the “exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination.” Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.1980), quoting, Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 829 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia-Cabrera v. Cohen
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (granting federal employee right to file a judicial complaint in which “the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant”); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980) 8 ; see also Canino v. U.S.E.E.O.C., 707 F.2d 468, 472 (11th Cir.1983) (affirming dismissal of individual defendants sued under Title VII) (citing Newbold, 614 F.2d at 47 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wright v. Butts
Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980); see also Brown v. General Serv.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wood v. United States
See, e.g., Baird v. Haith, 724 F.Supp. 367, 378-79 (D.Md.1988); White v. General Services Administration, 652 F.2d 913, 916-17 (9th Cir.1981); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lopez v. Louisiana National Guard
(2×)
See Irwin v. Veterans Administration, 874 F.2d 1092, 1095 (5th Cir.1989) (Brown bars such claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1109 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1990); Porter v. Adams, 639 F.2d 273, 278 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981) (same for such Bivens actions); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) (same for such claims "under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq."), reh’g denied mem., 616 F.2d 568 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980); see also Hunter v. Stetson, 444 F.Supp. 238 , 239 n. 1 (…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ganheart v. Lujan
Plaintiff does not appear to dispute either that the Department fully complied with the Director’s order or that the Director’s order granted plaintiff full, satisfactory relief on her first claim. .See Irwin v. Veterans Administration, 874 F.2d 1092, 1095 (5th Cir.1989) (Brown bars such claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986); Porter v. Adams, 639 F.2d 273, 278 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981) (same for such Bivens actions); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (same for such claims "under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq."); cf. Temengil v. Trust Territor…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tilley v. Frank
Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baird v. Haith
White v. General Services Administration, 652 F.2d 913, 917 (9th Cir.1981); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980); McLaughlin v. Hoffman, 547 F.2d 918 , 921 n. 5 (5th Cir.1977); Gissen v. Tackman, 537 F.2d 784, 786 (3rd Cir.1976); Stith v. Barnwell, 447 F.Supp. 970, 974 (M.D.N.C.1978); Berio v. EEOC, 446 F.Supp. 171, 174 (D.D.C.1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carolyn A. Lamb v. United States Postal Service, Harold A. Latiolais, Postmaster, and Acting Postmaster
Dacus v. United States Postal Service, No. 87-6067 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 1988) [ 841 F.2d 395 (table)]; Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), *847 cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980). 2 In Dacus , we noted that [t]he complaint ... failed to name the appropriate defendant.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carver v. Casey
Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 829 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1966 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976) (Title VII is “an exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination”); see also Canino v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 707 F.2d 468, 472 (11th Cir.1983); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Healy v. United States Postal Service
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); Hall v. Small Business Administration, 695 F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir.1983); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980); Canino v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 707 F.2d 468 , 472 (11th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Levi ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
The district court, relying on Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980), dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because of untimely filing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ornellas v. Lammers
DeGrace v. Rumsfeld, 614 F.2d 796, 808 (1st Cir.1980) (§ 1981 claim precluded); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980) (§§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims precluded); Scott v. Perry, 569 F.2d 1064, 1065 (9th Cir.1978) (§ 1981, 1982, and 1983 claims precluded); Gissen v. Tackman, 537 F.2d 784, 786 (3d Cir.1976) (§ 1985 claim precluded); Neves v. Kolaski, 602 F.Supp. 645, 648 (D.R.I.1985) (constitutional claims precluded); Castro v. United States, 584 F.Supp. 252, 258 (D.P.R.1984) (constitutio…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walter D. McGuinness v. United States Postal Service, Felix J. Jackson, and A.A. Winslow, Defendants
Campbell v. U.S. Navy, 567 F.Supp. 356, 357 (D.Md.1983); see White v. General Services Administration, 652 F.2d 913, 916-17 (9th Cir.1981); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (alternative holding).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lage v. Thomas
Individual Defendants Under §717 The only proper defendant in a civil action pursuant to § 717 is the “head of the department, agency or unit, as appropriate.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980), reh’g denied, 449 U.S. 1027 , 101 S.Ct. 600 , 66 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wickfall v. Bolger
See Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 835, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1969 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1961); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 , reh’g denied, 449 U.S. 1027 , 101 S.Ct. 600 , 66 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
32 Fair empl.prac.cas. 139, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,692 Robert E. Canino v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (e.e.o.c.), J. Clay Smith, in His Official Capacity as Acting Chairman of E.E.O.C., Donald L. Hollowell, in His Official Capacity as Regional Director, Atlanta Region
See Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980) (Title VII provides the "exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Canino v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
See Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980) (Title VII provides the “exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Munoz v. Orr
Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1981); Weiss v. Marsh, 543 F.Supp. 1115, 1117 (M.D.Ala.1981); Morton v. Harris, 86 F.R.D. 437, 439 (N.D.Ga.1980). 3 Thus, the Court finds that the Department of the Air Force and Kelly Air Force Base should be dismissed as defendants in the above-referenced cause.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Arsenaux v. Henry J. Roberts, Jr.
See also Cole v. Gray, 638 F.2d 804, 811 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 838 , 102 S.Ct. 144 , 70 L.Ed.2d 120 (1981); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sims v. Schweiker
Stanislaus v. Steorts, 530 F.Supp. 72, 74 (N.D.Ill.1981) and cases cited; see also Gaballah v. Johnson, 629 F.2d 1191, 1198 (7th Cir. 1980); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980). 6 Sims’s Complaint does allege all conditions precedent to this Court’s jurisdiction *755 have been complied with.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bechtel v. United States Office of Personnel Management, Southeast Region
E.g., Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir. 1980); Lang v. Schweiker, 26 FEP Cases 1413, 1415 (N.D.Ga. 1981) (Vining, J.); Morton v. Harris, 86 FRD 437, 438-39 (N.D.Ga. 1980) (Hall, J.), aff'd., 628 F.2d 438 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1044 , 101 S.Ct. 1766 , 68 L.Ed.2d 243 (1981); Keeler v. Hills, 408 F.Supp. 386, 387 (N.D.Ga. *113 1975) (Moye, J.); Jones v. Brennan, 401 F.Supp. 622, 627 (N.D.Ga.1975) (Moye, J.). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Jacqueline R. Laurent v. John E. Potter
Laurent next contends the district court erred in dismissing Cullen and *455 Brantley from her complaint because their alleged conduct was the basis for filing an employment discrimination lawsuit against USPS. 2 Title VII provides that the “head of the department, agency, or unit” that allegedly discriminated against the plaintiff “shall be the defendant” in any civil action by a federal employee claiming discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); see Newbold v. U.S. Postal Serv., 614 F.2d 46 , 47 (5th Cir.1980) (holding that an individual employee was not a proper defendant in a Title…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. American Postal Workers Union, National
See Newbold v. USPS, 614 F.2d 46 , 47 (5th Cir.1980) (opining without further discussion that “the Brown court’s broad language on preemption and exclusivity suggests that there is no cause of action against individuals under § 1981 ... ”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert E. Jones v. American Postal Workers Union, National
See Newbold v. USPS, 614 F.2d 46 , 47 (5th Cir. 1980) (opining without further discussion that "the Brown court's broad language on preemption and exclusivity suggests that there is no cause of action against individuals under § 1981 . . .").
cited
Cited "see"
Bergeron v. Henderson
See New-bold v. U.S. Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Montez v. Romer
Only 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-16(c) explicitly addresses the issue, providing in employment actions against the federal government, that the “head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate shall be the defendant.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-16(c); see Newbold v. U.S. Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46 , 47 (5th Cir.1980).
cited
Cited "see"
75 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1237, 73 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,385 Marie Pfau v. William Reed, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency
See Newbold v. United States Postal Serv., 614 F.2d 46 , 47 (5th Cir.1980); Cazalas v. United States Dep't of Justice, 569 F.Supp. 213, 225-27 (E.D.La.1983), aff'd, 731 F.2d 280 (5th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Pfau v. Reed
See Newbold v. United States Postal Serv., 614 F.2d 46 , 47 (5th Cir.1980); Cazalas v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 569 F.Supp. 213, 225-27 (E.D.La.1983), affd, 731 F.2d 280 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Miller v. Runyon
See Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 46 (5th Cir.1980); 1 see also Schoo v. United States Postal Service, 865 F.2d 1259 , 1988 WL 142904, *1 (4th Cir.1988); McGuinness v. United States Postal Service, 744 F.2d 1318, 1322-23 (7th Cir.1984); Cooper v. United States Postal Service, 740 F.2d 714, 716 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1022 , 105 S.Ct. 2034 , 85 L.Ed.2d 316 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Evelyn J. WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Manuel LUJAN, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee
See Newbold v. United States, 614 F.2d 46 , 47 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Colon v. Lomelo
See Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46 (5th Cir.), reh. denied, 616 F.2d 568 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 , reh. denied, 449 U.S. 1027 , 101 S.Ct. 600 , 66 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Henzel v. Gerstein, 608 F.2d 654 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Langster v. Schweiker
See Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980); Hackley v. Roudebush, 520 F.2d 108 (D.C.Cir.1975); Carver v. Veterans Administration, 455 F.Supp. 544 (E.D.Tenn.1978); Brooks v. Brinegar, 391 F.Supp. 710 (W.D.Okl.1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hall v. Small Business Administration
See Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980); Davis v. Califano, 613 F.2d 957 , 958 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1979); Ayon v. Sampson, 547 F.2d 446 , 447 n. 2 (9th Cir.1976). 32 For these reasons the judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for dismissal of the parties improperly joined and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 28 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hall v. Small Business Administration
See Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980); Davis v. Califano, 613 F.2d 957 , 958 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1979); Ayon v. Sampson, 547 F.2d 446 , 447 n. 2 (9th Cir.1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Marie PFAU v. William REED, In His Official Capacity as Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency
See Newbold v. United States Postal Serv., 614 F.2d 46 , 47 (5th Cir.1980); Cazalas v. United States Dep't of Justice, 569 F.Supp. 213, 225-27 (E.D.La.1983), aff'd, 731 F.2d 280 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Luttrell v. Runyon
See Rojas v. APWU, Case No. 94-1083-FGT (D.Kan.1995) (Humphreys, M.J.); see also, Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980)(APWU not a proper defendant under § 2000e-16(c)); but see, Jennings v. American Postal Workers Union, 672 F.2d 712 (8th Cir.1982) (APWU is a labor organization under Title VII).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lohf v. Runyon
See Rojas v. APWU, Case No. 94-1083-FGT (D .Kan.1995) (Humphreys, M.J.); see also, Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 . (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980)(APWU not a proper defendant under § 2000e-16(e)); but see, Jennings v. American Postal Workers Union, 672 F.2d 712 (8th Cir.1982) (APWU is a labor organization under Title VII), The ADEA uses the same or similar definitions of “employer” and “labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 630 (b)(d) & (e).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. Frank
Compare Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980) with Jennings v. APWU, 672 F.2d 712 (8th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Demesme v. Frank
Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1969 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); see also Newbold v. United States Postal Serv., 614 F.2d 46 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980). 4 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Walker v. Secretary of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
See also Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Drayton v. Veterans Administration
Title VII is an “exclusive, preemptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination.” Id. at 828-29, 96 S.Ct. at 1966; see also Newbold v. U.S. Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980) (discharged postal worker precluded from bringing suit for employment discrimination under § 1981 because of the exclusive remedy provided by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e); Adams v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 77-2307 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Polisoto v. Weinberger
See Eastland v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 553 F.2d 364, 368-69 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1066 , 104 S.Ct. 1415 , 79 L.Ed.2d 741 (1984); see also Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 , reh’g denied, 449 U.S. 1027 , 101 S.Ct. 600 , 66 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); cf. Brown v. General Service Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 824-25 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1963-64 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402, 405-06 (1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
23 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1768, 22 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,741 Richard Bert Newbold
v.
United States Postal Service, American Postal Workers Union, McKenzie Moore, Harold Long, Jr., Glenn Shuman and Miguel Orta
v.
United States Postal Service, American Postal Workers Union, McKenzie Moore, Harold Long, Jr., Glenn Shuman and Miguel Orta
79-1812.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 18, 1980.
614 F.2d 46
Published
23 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1768,
22 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,741
Richard Bert NEWBOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, American Postal Workers Union,
McKenzie Moore, Harold Long, Jr., Glenn Shuman and
Miguel Orta, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 79-1812
Summary Calendar.[*]
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
March 17, 1980.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 18, 1980.
Richard Bert Newbold, pro se.
Kaplan, Sicking, Hessen, Sugarman, Rosenthal & Zienta, Steven M. Bloom, Miami, Fla., for American Postal Workers.
Thomas H. Pigford, Memphis, Tenn., for U.S. Postal Service and McKenzie Moore.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before GODBOLD, REAVLEY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed his complaint in this case in September 1978[1] against the United States Postal Service, American Postal Workers Union, McKenzie Moore, Harold Long, Jr., Glenn Shuman, and Miguel Orta. He alleges that the Postal Service discriminated against him because of his race and that Moore and APWU joined with the Postal Service in a conspiracy to discriminate against him. Moore is alleged to be the equal employment opportunity officer at the Postal Service. Long, Shuman and Orta are alleged to be attorneys with whom plaintiff consulted in pursuing his claims against the Postal Service, Moore and APWU. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Since the court considered matters outside the pleadings we consider the order as a summary judgment for defendants.
2
There was no subject matter jurisdiction of the claim against the Postal Service under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) and other relevant provisions of Title VII because plaintiff did not timely file suit after receiving E.E.O.C.'s denial of his claim. Eastland v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 553 F.2d 364 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 985, 98 S.Ct. 611, 54 L.Ed.2d 479 (1977). Moreover, plaintiff in any event could not have sued APWU or Moore under § 2000e-16(c), providing for suit against the head of a department or agency or unit, as neither is a proper defendant under that section.
3
Nor may a suit for employment discrimination be brought against the Postal Service under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Et seq., as Title VII is "an exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination." Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 829, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1966, 48 L.Ed.2d 402, 409 (1976). There was no union or individual defendant in Brown, so it does not squarely control with respect to suits under §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 or 1986 against Moore and APWU. However, the Brown court's broad language on preemption and exclusivity suggests that there is no cause of action against individuals under § 1981, Et seq. See Gissen v. Tackman, 537 F.2d 784, 786 (3d Cir. 1976) (en banc).
4
No claim was stated against the three attorneys. At most plaintiff alleged no more than that the attorneys did not handle his claims efficiently and thus must have been part of the alleged conspiracy against him. This does not rise to the level of a federal cause of action; moreover, absent any evidence of misfeasance on the part of the attorneys, the claim cannot withstand a motion for summary judgment.
5
AFFIRMED.
*
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18
1
Thirty-three pages long, claiming damages of ten million dollars, and impugning the integrity of the federal district judge who presided over an earlier employment discrimination suit by plaintiff (dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies)