2 U.S.C. § 1408

Civil action

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Jurisdiction

The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action commenced under section 1401 of this title and this section by a covered employee.

(b) Parties

The defendant shall be the employing office alleged to have committed the violation, or in which the violation is alleged to have occurred.

Any party may demand a jury trial where a jury trial would be available in an action against a private defendant under the relevant law made applicable by this chapter. In any case in which a violation of section 1311 of this title is alleged, the court shall not inform the jury of the maximum amount of compensatory damages available under section 1311(b)(1) or 1311(b)(3) of this title.

(d) Appearances by House Employment Counsel(1) In general

The House Employment Counsel of the House of Representatives and any other counsel in the Office of House Employment Counsel of the House of Representatives, including any counsel specially retained by the Office of House Employment Counsel, shall be entitled, for the purpose of providing legal assistance and representation to employing offices of the House of Representatives under this chapter, to enter an appearance in any proceeding before any court of the United States or of any State or political subdivision thereof without compliance with any requirements for admission to practice before such court, except that the authorization conferred by this paragraph shall not apply with respect to the admission of any such person to practice before the United States Supreme Court.

(2) House Employment Counsel definedIn this subsection, the term “Office of House Employment Counsel of the House of Representatives” means—(A) the Office of House Employment Counsel established and operating under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Representatives as of November 12, 2001;(B) any successor office to the Office of House Employment Counsel which is established after November 12, 2001; and(C) any other person authorized and directed in accordance with the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide legal assistance and representation to employing offices of the House of Representatives in connection with actions brought under this subchapter.(Pub. L. 104–1, title IV, § 408, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 37; Pub. L. 107–68, title I, § 119(a), Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 573; Pub. L. 115–397, title I, § 101(b), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5300.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (c) and (d)(1), 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.

Amendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–397 substituted “section 1401 of this title” for “section 1404 of this title” and struck out “who has completed counseling under section 1402 of this title and mediation under section 1403 of this title. A civil action may be commenced by a covered employee only to seek redress for a violation for which the employee has completed counseling and mediation” after “covered employee”.

2001—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 107–68 added subsec. (d).

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.

Effective Date of 2001 Amendment

Pub. L. 107–68, title I, § 119(b), Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 574, provided that: “The amendment made by this section [amending this section] shall apply with respect to proceedings occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 12, 2001].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Fields, Beverly v. Off Eddie Johnson, 459 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fields, Beverly v. Off Eddie Johnson, 459 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “” 2 U.S.C. § 1408 (b); id. § 1301(3), (9); see, e.”

Gordon v. Off. of the Architect of the Capitol, 750 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 4× “2 U.S.C. § 1408 (2006). To commence this process, the employee must first submit a request for counseling “not later than 180 days after the date of the alleged violation.”

Schmidt v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 826 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 1408 (a). 7 The District of Columbia Circuit has recognized that a district court will not have subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising under § 1311 until a plaintiff has fully complied with the administrative process mandated by the CAA.”

Halcomb v. Off. of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, 563 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 3× “2 U.S.C. § 1408 (a); Halcomb, 209 F.Supp.”

Sunday Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol, 927 F.3d 561 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “II The district court exercised jurisdiction over this civil action under the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. § 1408 . We have jurisdiction to review the district court's final judgment pursuant to 28 U.”

Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 338 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 4× “2 U.S.C. § 1408 (a). Section 402 states that “[a] request for counseling shall be made not later than 180 days after the date of the alleged violation.”

Morris Davis v. James Billington, 681 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 1408 . Section 1410 was included to prevent the “circumvention of th[e] Act by such methods as implied statutory, common law, or Constitutional causes of action in either the Judicial or Executive Branch.”

Halcomb v. Off. of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms of the United States Senate, 209 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 2 U.S.C. § 1408 (a) (“A civil action may be commenced by a covered employee only to seek redress for a violation for which the employee has completed counseling and mediation.”

Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “” 2 U.S.C. § 1408 (a). Reemphasizing these requirements, the subsection provides: “A civil action may be commenced by a covered employee only to seek redress for a violation for which the employee has completed counseling and mediation,” id.”

Howard v. Off. of the Chief Admin. Officer of the United States House of Representatives, 720 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 1408 . An “employing office” includes, among other congressional offices, (i) the personal office of a Member of the House of Representatives or of a Senator, (ii) a House or Senate committee, and (iii) any other office with the authority to make personnel decisions…”

Hollabaugh v. Off. of the Architect of the Capitol, 847 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 1408 (a). Before initiating such an action, the employee must seek counseling by, and mediation with, the Office of Compliance.”

Brady v. Livingood, 360 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2004). “2 U.S.C. § 1408 (a). B. Race Discrimination — Disparate Impact In Count II of the Amended Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the “selection and interviewing process used by Defendant [Office of the Sergeant at Arms] for management positions consistently have had a disparate…”

Show all 53 citing cases →

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.