2 U.S.C. § 1361

Generally applicable remedies and limitations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Attorney’s fees

If a covered employee, with respect to any claim under this chapter, or a qualified person with a disability, with respect to any claim under section 1331 of this title, is a prevailing party in any proceeding under section 1405, 1406, 1407, or 1408 of this title, the hearing officer, Board, or court, as the case may be, may award attorney’s fees, expert fees, and any other costs as would be appropriate if awarded under section 2000e–5(k) of title 42.

(b) Interest

In any proceeding under section 1405, 1406, 1407, or 1408 of this title, the same interest to compensate for delay in payment shall be made available as would be appropriate if awarded under section 2000e–16(d) of title 42.

(c) Civil penalties and punitive damages

No civil penalty or punitive damages may be awarded with respect to any claim under this chapter.

(d) Exclusive procedure(1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person may commence an administrative or judicial proceeding to seek a remedy for the rights and protections afforded by this chapter except as provided in this chapter.

(2) Veterans

A covered employee under section 1316 of this title may also utilize any provisions of chapter 43 of title 38 that are applicable to that employee.

(e) Construction(1) Definitions and exemptions

Except where inconsistent with definitions and exemptions provided in this chapter, the definitions and exemptions in the laws made applicable by this chapter shall apply under this chapter.

(2) Size limitations

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), provisions in the laws made applicable under this chapter (other than the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act [29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.]) determining coverage based on size, whether expressed in terms of numbers of employees, amount of business transacted, or other measure, shall not apply in determining coverage under this chapter.

(3) Executive branch enforcement

This chapter shall not be construed to authorize enforcement by the executive branch of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 104–1, title II, § 225, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 22; Pub. L. 115–397, title I, § 101(d), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5301.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a), (c), (d)(1), and (e), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 104–1, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 3, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1301 of this title and Tables.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, referred to in subsec. (e)(2), is Pub. L. 100–379, Aug. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 890, which is classified generally to chapter 23 (§ 2101 et seq.) of Title 29, Labor. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2101 of Title 29 and Tables.

Amendments

2018—Subsecs. (e), (f). Pub. L. 115–397 redesignated subsec. (f) as (e) and struck out former subsec. (e). Prior to amendment, text of subsec. (e) read as follows: “Only a covered employee who has undertaken and completed the procedures described in sections 1402 and 1403 of this title may be granted a remedy under part A of this subchapter.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–397 effective upon expiration of the 180-day period beginning on Dec. 21, 2018, with provisions for effect on pending proceedings, see section 401 of Pub. L. 115–397, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1998–2012 · leading case: Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 338 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2004).
Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 338 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 6× “2 U.S.C. § 1361 (e). The D.C. Circuit’s pronouncement in Foster v.”
Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “§ 1361 (d)(1), (e) (“Only a covered employee who has undertaken and completed the procedures described in sections 1402 [counseling] and 1403 [mediation] of this title may be granted a remedy under part A of this subchapter.”). We therefore turn to appellants’ challenge to *707…”
Adams v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 564 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2008). “See 2 U.S.C. §§ 1361 (e), 1402, 1408. Otherwise, permitting officers who have not exhausted their administrative remedies to proceed through the class action mechanism would impermissibly create a substantive right and remedy in contravention of the doctrine of sovereign…”
Payne v. Meeks, 200 F. Supp. 2d 200 (E.D.N.Y 2002). “” 2 U.S.C. § 1361 (d)(1). Section 413 further provides that “[t]he authorization to bring judicial proceedings under [the Act] shall not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for any other purpose.”
Bastien v. Off. of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Colo. 2002). “2 U.S.C. § 1361 (d). Thus, the present age discrimination grievance is governed solely by the procedures and remedies set forth in the CAA.”
Harris v. Off. of the Architect of the Capitol, 16 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 1998). “§ 1403 (requiring mediation prior to filing suit); 2 U.S.C. § 1361 (c) (prohibiting punitive damages).”
Packer v. United States Comm'n on Sec. & Cooperation in Eur., 843 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012). “, 2 U.S.C. § 1361 (d)(1) (prescribing that “no person may commence an administrative or judicial proceeding to seek a reme *48 dy for the rights and protections afforded by this [Act] except as provided in this [Act]”); H.”
Legal Effect of Fed. Judge's Order as Hearing Officer Under Court's Emp. Dispute Resolution Plan (OLC 2010). “9 Given that the EDR process is a creation of the 2 U.S.C. § 1361 (f)(3). See also Eastham v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.