Spinelli, Gianpaola v. Goss, Porter

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because “there was no administrative complaint and thus no final disposition of one, the district court lacked jurisdiction”
• holding that Title VII’s exhaustion requirements apply to claims against federal agencies under the Rehabilitation Act
• concluding that the district court “should have dismissed [plaintiff’s] Rehabilitation Act claim for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedy”
• concluding that \a court may 'not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise'\ (quoting Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001))
• explaining that under the Rehabilitation Act, “[s]uch ‘jurisdictional exhaustion,’ as we have called it, may not be excused”
• explaining that Rehabilitation “Act limits judicial review to employees ‘aggrieved by the final disposition’ of their administrative ‘complaint’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).