	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50285
Summary Calendar
PAUL W. SANDERS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JANET RENO, United States Attorney General; ET AL.,
Defendants,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; U.S. IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; U.S. BORDER
PATROL, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
September 9, 1999
Before POLITZ, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Circuit Judge:
Paul W. Sanders, Jr. appeals the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) dismissal of his action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Our de novo review discloses no reversible
error.
After Sanders, a federal employee, was not selected for a lateral transfer, he
claimed that he was discriminated against based on his age and in retaliation for
protected activity, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29

U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. The Department of
Justice issued a Final Agency Decision ("FAD") in favor of Sanders, finding that
his employer, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, had unlawfully
discriminated against him based on his age. Thereafter, the INS offered Sanders
the position he desired and commenced the process of re-employment. Before the
process could be completed, counsel for Sanders wrote the INS advising that
Sanders accepted the position offered and requested re-employment with various
benefits. Without awaiting a response from the INS, Sanders filed the instant suit,
demanding, in effect, that the INS comply with the FAD. Subsequently, Sanders
resumed working in the position offered.
Sanders failed to satisfy the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a), which
directs that "[i]f [a] complainant believes that [an] agency has failed to comply
with the terms of a settlement agreement or decision, the complainant shall notify
the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance within 30 days of when
the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance." We
reject Sanders' contention that his counsel's letter constitutes substantial
compliance. That letter was not addressed to the EEO Director and did not allege
noncompliance. Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction herein. We also
reject as meritless counsel's contention that Sanders was not required to exhaust
remedies1 or that his constitutional rights have somehow been violated by our
1We do not hold, contrary to Sanders' suggestion, that a federal employee must
exhaust remedies before bringing an ADEA claim. Rather, we hold that a federal
employee seeking enforcement of a FAD must exhaust remedies.
2