Jordan Yee v. Bureau of Prisons

PER CURIAM: * In this Title VII action brought by Jordan Yee, M.D., an employee of the Bureau of Prisons, we agree with the district court that plaintiff’s action seeks relief which represents an attempted collateral attack on a previous, unfavorable arbitration order. The previous arbitration proceeding involved a grievance plaintiff filed through his union challenging a one day suspension for allegedly changing a prescription and a related charge of providing misleading statements during the investigation. In this Title VII suit, plaintiff alleged that his supervisor discriminated against him by failing to furnish him with exculpatory evidence that would have been helpful to him in the arbitration proceeding. *2 As the district court stated, all of the plaintiffs current claims relate to defendants’ alleged wrongful acts before and during the previous arbitration. Plaintiff is attempting to collaterally challenge the arbitration order and the procedure followed in that proceeding by way of this Title VII action, which the district court correctly concluded he cannot do. See e.g., United States Postal Serv. v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 64 F.Supp.2d 633 (S.D.Tx.1999); Brown v. Potter, 67 Fed.Appx. 368 (7th Cir.2003). We also agree with the distinct court that Plaintiffs due process claim must also fail. The duty to disclose exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), applies in criminal cases and is inapplicable to a labor arbitration arising from an employment dispute, which is a civil proceeding. See Tandon v. Comm’r, 2000 WL 331926 (6th Cir. March 23, 2000); NLRB v. Nueva Eng’g, Inc., 761 F.2d 961, 969 (4th Cir.l985)(rejecting application of Brady to proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board); Mister Discount Stockbrokers, Inc. v. SEC, 768 F.2d 875, 878 (7th Cir.l985)(re-jecting Brady in context of securities administrative disciplinary proceeding). For the reasons stated above along with the reasons stated by the district court in its cogent order of February 27, 2009, 2009 WL 528602, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Footnotes [*] Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.