Analysis of Albion Francis vs Norman Y. Mineta Case - Essay Example

Albion Francis, a former federal worker, chose to appeal to the district court’s decision to dismiss his case under Fed.R.Civ.p.12 (b) (1), in which he purports to have been discriminated against in employment. Statement of facts. The district court established that the appellant had not consulted all the administrative avenues as required under Title VII and so found the dismissal was warranted.

The appellant, however, was discontented with the court’s decision and sort, to appeal to the court of appeal. As a consequence, he was dismissed for an apparent violation of the department’s grooming policy. This action prompted him to sue the department for employment discrimination based on religion and brought the case under the RFRA. The Transport Security Administration stated that each employee was bound by the department’s policy on grooming. The main point of concern was whether the RFRA applied. The district court then placing the claim under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stated that it was a violation of this Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on various aspects (Holloway).

As a requirement, however, the employee was supposed to have at first exhausted all the administrative avenues as appertains to Title VII before seeking remedy in a new court and hence lacked the subject matter jurisdiction.IssueThe court of appeal found out that the failure of the appellant to address all remedies does not hinder the district court from passing its decision and that dismissal was warranted. The holding court of appeal confirmed the district court’s dismissal of the employee’s complaint.

RationaleThe court’s decision to affirm the position of the district court was based on the civil rights act in actions against federal law, which specifies the plaintiff’s timely exhaustion of the administrative avenues in Title VII. They have no influence on the district court from exercising its mandate. Furthermore, in Title VII cases, courts have been granted permission in certain limited situations to proportionally toll filing needs, even under extreme cases like inability to file.

Which as a necessity, makes it impossible to characterize such needs as “jurisdictional.” Moreover, the RFRA applies to all aspects of law whether statutory or otherwise taken up before and after the passage of RFRA. However, some areas are not affected by the RFRA, which includes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which specifies that nothing alters Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on religious-based employment discrimination (McCulloch and Castagnera).