Robert B. REICH, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor,
Respondent.
April 15, 1997.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Labor.
Before EDMONSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and HILL, Senior Circuit
Judge.
BLACK, Circuit Judge:
This case presents an issue of first impression
in this country: does the Supreme Court's pronouncement in
Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 108 S.Ct.
1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988), regarding the collateral nature of
fee determinations apply to administrative cases? Because we
discern no reason that the Supreme Court's holding would not apply
to an appeal from the decision of an administrative agency, we
dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises under section 210 of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA) as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851,
a "whistleblower" protection provision designed to
protect employees in the nuclear industry from employer reprisals
for reporting potential safety problems. See generally English
v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 110 L.Ed.2d
65 (1990). The Secretary of Labor has jurisdiction over employee
whistleblower complaints under section 210(b) of the ERA. 42
U.S.C. § 5851(b).
Shortly after his termination on December 3,
1987, Douglas A. Tritt, an employee of Fluor Constructors, Inc.
(Fluor), filed a complaint with the Department of Labor. The
complaint alleged that Fluor discharged Tritt because he raised
safety concerns regarding nuclear radiation contamination at the
Crystal River Power Plant. An administrative law judge (ALJ)
recommended dismissal of the complaint after concluding that Tritt
failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful reprisal
under the whistleblower statute.
On August 25, 1993, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 24.6(b), the Secretary of Labor issued an order reversing
the ALJ. The Secretary ruled that Fluor had violated the ERA
whistleblower provisions by discharging Tritt for refusing a job
assignment he considered unsafe. The order remanded the case to
the ALJ for a determination of back pay, benefits, and, if
necessary, compensatory damages. Fluor subsequently sought review
of the Secretary's order in this court, but we determined
jurisdiction was lacking because Fluor was not appealing a final
order.
After remand, the ALJ recommended that Tritt
receive $3,160 in back pay, but no compensatory damages. On March
16, 1995, the Secretary issued an order upholding the ALJ's
decision on damages and remanding for the sole purpose of
determining the amount of attorney's fees Fluor owed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(B). The ALJ subsequently issued a
Supplemental Recommended Decision and Order Approving Attorney's
Fees, which the Secretary adopted.
On June 29, 1995, Fluor petitioned this Court
for a review of the orders issued by the Secretary. On the
afternoon of September 12, 1995, 180 days after the Secretary's
March 16 order, the Solicitor's Office at the Department of Labor
telephoned Fluor to advise the company that the Secretary was
considering filing a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The
Department of Labor reasoned that Fluor should have initiated any
appeal within the requisite period of time after issuance of the
final and appealable March 16 order.
II. ANALYSIS
A party is required to file a petition for
review of a final decision of a Secretary "within the time
prescribed by law." Fed.R.App.P. 15(a). The ERA provides
that petitions for review in the United States courts of appeals
"must be filed within sixty days from the issuance of the
Secretary's order." 42 U.S.C. § 5851(c)(1). Courts of
appeals are not permitted to enlarge the time prescribed by law for
filing a notice of appeal from an order of an administrative
agency. See Fed.R.App.P. 26(b); see also Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 666
F.2d 595, 602 (D.C.Cir.1981).
In Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
the Supreme Court held that both the imposition and the amount of
attorney's fees are always collateral to the merits of an action.
486 U.S. at 201-02, 108 S.Ct. at 1721-22. Noting that a bright
line rule would serve litigants and courts best, the Court held
that for appealability purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, a
decision on the merits is a final decision "whether or not
there remains for adjudication a request for attorney's fees
attributable to the case." 486 U.S. at 202-03, 108 S.Ct. at
1722. The Court stated that "[a]s a general matter ... we
think it indisputable that a claim for attorney's fees is not part
of the merits of the action to which the fees pertain." 486
U.S. at 200, 108 S.Ct. at 1721.
Where an order disposes of a party's
substantive claims, but does not dispose of claims relating to
attorney's fees, the time for appeal of the substantive claims
starts to run from the date of the first order unless the district
court grants a delay. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. Though
Budinich considered the timeliness of an appeal from a
district court judgment rather than a review of a final
administrative decision, the Supreme Court's analysis does not
allow for the establishment of a different rule for administrative
cases. We hold that for the purposes of an appeal from an
administrative agency, both the imposition and the amount of
attorney's fees are collateral to the merits of an action.
A litigant could escape the strict deadline
under the "unique circumstances" doctrine for purposes of
granting an appeal. It is true that there are many unique
circumstances in this case. The Supreme Court has, however,
articulated a strict construction of the "unique
circumstances" doctrine, limiting its application to
situations "where a party has performed an act which, if
properly done, would postpone the deadline for filing his appeal
and has received specific assurance by a judicial officer that this
act has been properly done." Osterneck v. Ersnt &
Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 179, 109 S.Ct. 987, 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 146
(1989). Appellant does not meet this standard.
The Secretary's final decision on the merits
was issued on March 16, 1995. The last day for filing an appeal of
this decision was 60 days after its issuance, which was May 15,
1995. See 42 U.S.C. § 5851(c)(1); Fed.R.App.P. 15(a).
Fluor's petition for review of the Secretary's order on the merits
was filed on June 29, 1995.1
Accordingly, the appeal was untimely, and this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.2
1Appellant's attorney was
perhaps misled by the Secretary's titling of the final decision on
the merits as "Decision and Order of Remand." The title
of the order following the remand for a determination of attorney's
fees, "Final Decision," may have contributed to that
confusion. The Secretary may not create jurisdiction, however.
The fact that Secretary's final order on the merits was styled as
a remand for attorney's fees is not significant for jurisdictional
purposes. See Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 628 n.
7, 110 S.Ct. 2658, 2665 n. 7, 110 L.Ed.2d 563 (1990) ("It is
true, as respondent maintains, that the District Court did not
caption its order as a "judgment,' much less a "final
judgment.' The label used by the District Court of course cannot
control the order's appealability in this case....").
2" "[A]
jurisdictional ruling may never be made prospective only.' "
Budinich, 486 U.S. at 202, 108 S.Ct. at 1722 (quoting
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379-80, 101 S.Ct. 669, 676, 66
L.Ed.2d 571 (1981)). The failure to
anticipate the result was fatal to the merits of the appellant's
case in Budinich. The same is true here. Appellant is not
prejudiced by this extension of the law because a review of the
record reveals that the Secretary did not abuse his discretion in
adjudicating Tritt's claims. Thus, because there was no reversible
error, the appellant would not prevail on its claims even were we
permitted to consider the merits of the case.