Exhaustion of Remedies


Also found in: Wikipedia.

Exhaustion of Remedies

The exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine requires that procedures established by statute, Common Law, contract, or custom must be initiated and followed in certain cases before an aggrieved party may seek relief from the courts. After all other available remedies have been exhausted, a lawsuit may be filed.

Most commonly, exhaustion of remedies applies where an Administrative Agency has been established by Congress to handle grievances that occur under its purview. For example, if a dispute arises over a provision in a labor contract, the parties may be required to follow specific grievance procedures administered by the national labor relations board (NLRB). After the parties have satisfied each requirement of the grievance process, and the NLRB has reached its final decision, they may appeal the decision to a higher tribunal.

The rationale behind requiring parties to exhaust their administrative remedies is that the agencies have the specialized personnel, experience, and expertise to sort and decide matters that arise under their jurisdiction. Also, the doctrine of Separation of Powers dictates that an agency created by Congress should be allowed to carry out its duties without undue interference from the judiciary.

The exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine also applies in certain classes of cases where state remedies must be exhausted before a party may pursue a case in federal court. In these situations, exhaustion of remedies is a rule of comity, or courtesy, by which federal courts defer to state courts to make the initial determination as to all claims, federal or state, raised in a case. For example, petitions for Habeas Corpus (release from unlawful imprisonment) by an inmate of a state prison are not heard by a federal court until after all state remedies are exhausted (see Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S. Ct. 587, 94 L. Ed. 761 [1950]).

As with most legal doctrines, there are exceptions to the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement. A party bringing a Civil Rights action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 is not required to exhaust state remedies before filing suit in federal court. In Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S. Ct. 2557, 73 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1982), the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff—who claimed she was denied employment by a state university because of her race and her sex—was not required to exhaust her state administrative remedies before filing her suit in federal court, because such a requirement would be inconsistent with congressional intent in passing civil rights legislation.

Similarly, a criminal defense exception has been carved out by the Court. It allows a criminal defendant to raise the defense of improper administrative procedure even in cases where the defendant failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies. For example, in McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 89 S. Ct. 1657, 23 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1969), the defendant—who was charged with failure to report for induction into the armed services—was allowed to claim that his draft classification was invalid even though he had failed to pursue administrative remedies.

Finally, courts may allow an exception to the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine where administrative remedies are inadequate or would cause irreparable harm. In a case involving a claim of Wrongful Discharge from employment, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff—who may have had to wait up to ten years to be heard by the administrative agency—was not required to exhaust available administrative remedies before commencing a court action (Walker v. Southern Ry., 385 U.S. 196, 87 S. Ct. 365, 17 L. Ed. 2d 294 [1966]).

Further readings

Donnellan, Rebecca L. 2001. "The Exhaustion Doctrine Should Not Be a Doctrine with Exceptions." West Virginia Law Review 103 (spring): 361–86.

Funk, William. 2000. "Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies—New Dimensions Since Darby." Pace Environmental Law Review 18 (winter): 1–18.

Cross-references

Administrative Law and Procedure.

References in periodicals archive ?
The guarantee shall be furnished by a written, unconditional and unlimited absolute bank guarantee waiving the objection of contestation, set-off or require exhaustion of remedies has to be subject to German law.
After looking at the relevance of recent changes in personal jurisdiction law for ATS suits, the Article will examine statutes of limitations and tolling rules, forum non conveniens, exhaustion of remedies, and comity.
persuasion on the issue of exhaustion of remedies lies with the
172) This requirement is not applicable when the exhaustion of remedies is not possible under the domestic system.
That opinion was consistent with the dissenting opinion as to the breach of contract claim not requiring any exhaustion of remedies.
627 (1926), established early precedent requiring exhaustion of remedies before seeking monetary relief through the courts.
Dodge, National Courts and International Arbitration: Exhaustion of Remedies and Res Judicata Under Chapter Eleven of NAFTA, 23 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP.
Exhaustion of remedies may be excused, however, if there is a lack of meaningful access to the review procedures or if exhaustion would be futile.
8) The court agreed that exhaustion of remedies "would be futile, in the sense that plaintiffs would not have secured a religious exemption to the grooming policy even if they had strictly complied with Virginia Corrections' inmate-grievance protocol.
These include major exceptions to the at-will employment relationship, the public policy exception, contracts and employment handbooks, legal theories employees use in instituting litigation against employers, statutory protections, employers' liability for adverse employee actions, damages available to employees, insurance coverage for employee litigation, preemption and exhaustion of remedies, limiting liability when faced with adverse employee action, and employer litigation tactics.
Stating the APA's impressive arsenal of varied and abundant remedies for administrative error requires judicial freshening of the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of remedies, it admitted that the judiciary now had an obligation to extend greater judicial deference to the legislative scheme.