Jimenez v. United States Department of Transportation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-2557
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK JIMENEZ, No. 24-2557

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01458-TLN- KJN v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM* TRANSPORTATION, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 10, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Mark Jimenez (“Jimenez”) challenges the district court’s order dismissing

his employment discrimination claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Act for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and

procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. Plaintiffs seeking to litigate Title VII claims in federal

court must first exhaust their administrative remedies. Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59

F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 1995). Federal employees who raise allegations of

discrimination based on national origin or other protected categories may exhaust

their administrative remedies in two different ways. See 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d). “The

aggrieved employee may, as one option, raise the matter by filing a grievance

under the ‘negotiated procedure’ described in the [collective bargaining

agreement].” Heimrich v. Dept. of the Army, 947 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir. 2020).

“In the alternative, the employee may raise the matter under the ‘statutory

procedure’ by filing a formal complaint with the [EEOC].” Id. Once an election is

made as to which procedure to follow, the decision is irrevocable. Vinieratos v.

United States Dep’t of the Air Force, 939 F.2d 762, 768 (9th Cir. 1991).

Here, Jimenez chose to pursue the “negotiated procedure” but did not follow

the process to fruition. Instead, Jimenez filed a separate complaint with the EEOC

before engaging in binding arbitration, and then filed suit in federal district court.

2 Jimenez concedes that “binding arbitration did not come to fruition.” But

his allegations do not make clear that he ever submitted his claim to binding

arbitration, much less that the claim was adjudicated to completion. “A plaintiff

may not cut short the administrative process prior to its final disposition, for upon

abandonment a claimant fails to exhaust administrative relief and may not

thereafter seek redress from the courts.” Greenlaw, 59 F.3d at 997. The parties

did not engage in binding arbitration as required by 5 U.S.C. § 7121(b)(l)(C)(iii),

and therefore, Jimenez failed to demonstrate that he exhausted his administrative

remedies prior to filing suit in district court.

AFFIRMED.