Margolin v. NAIJ · ¶9

Respondent appealed. It did “no[t] dispute that the CSRA provides the exclusive avenue for review of certain employment-related claims.” Brief for Appellant in No. 23– 2235 (CA4), ECF Doc. 11–1, p. 18; see also id., at 21–22 (“Congress's intent to preclude district court jurisdiction is . . . manifest in the CSRA” (internal quotation marks omitted)). It again argued only that its specific claims were not covered under the CSRA's claim-channeling scheme. See id., at 21–39.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.