D.C. Code, § 1-605.2(6) (1981). The D.C. statute goes on to mandate "that the provisions of this paragraph shall be the exclusive method for reviewing the decision of an arbitrator concerning a matter properly subject to the jurisdiction of the Board . . . ." Id. Thus, on statutory grounds alone, the plaintiff is required to present his appeal to the Board.
In addition, District of Columbia case law demands that a party exhaust his or her available administrative appeals before turning to the courts for a review of such claim. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Hall, 537 A.2d 571 (D.C. App. 1988) (dismissing plaintiff's claim against employer Board of Education because of concurrent jurisdiction by Public Employee Relations Board). The U.S. Supreme Court has further established the need to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking review from the courts. See, e.g., Reiter v. Cooper, 122 L. Ed. 2d 604, 113 S. Ct. 1213, 1220 (1993) ("Where relief is available from an administrative agency, the plaintiff is ordinarily required to pursue that avenue of redress before proceeding to the courts; and until that recourse is exhausted, suit is premature and must be dismissed."); Myers v. Bethlehem Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51, 82 L. Ed. 638, 58 S. Ct. 459 (1938) (noting the "long settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief . . . until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.").
Plaintiff's claim does not fall within the limited exception to the exhaustion requirement. See, e.g., Bufford v. D.C. Public Schools, 611 A.2d 519, 524 (D.C. App. 1992) (finding no exemption from exhaustion requirement because circumstances were not "compelling" and plaintiff was not "blameless" for failure to use administrative remedies); Barnett v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 491 A.2d 1156 (D.C. App. 1985) (allowing judicial review despite failure to exercise timely right to administrative appeal because dispositive information was unavailable to plaintiff prior to expiration of time permitted for appeal). The plaintiff's complaint contains no allegation, and fails to support any justifiable inference, that he perceived an impediment to a Board appeal.
Finding that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, there is no need to consider here the defendants' additional grounds for their respective motions to dismiss.
An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
June 15, 1994
United States District Judge
Upon consideration of defendants' motions to dismiss, any opposition thereto, and for the reasons stated in the foregoing memorandum opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that this matter be dismissed.
DATE: June 15, 1994
United States District Court