EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
The exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine requires that procedures established by statute, COMMON LAW, contract, or custom must be initiated and followed in certain cases before an aggrieved party may seek relief from the courts. After all other available remedies have been exhausted, a lawsuit may be filed.
Most commonly, exhaustion of remedies
applies where an ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY has
been established by Congress to handle griev-
ances that occur under its purview. For example,
if a dispute arises over a provision in a labor con-
tract, the parties may be required to follow spe-
cific grievance procedures administered by the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB).
After the parties have satisfied each requirement
of the grievance process, and the NLRB has
reached its final decision, they may appeal the
decision to a higher tribunal.
The rationale behind requiring parties to
exhaust their administrative remedies is that the
agencies have the specialized personnel, experi-
ence, and expertise to sort and decide matters
that arise under their jurisdiction. Also, the doc-
trine of SEPARATION OF POWERS dictates that an
agency created by Congress should be allowed to
carry out its duties without undue interference
from the judiciary.
The exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine also
applies in certain classes of cases where state
remedies must be exhausted before a party may
pursue a case in federal court. In these situa-
tions, exhaustion of remedies is a rule of comity,
or courtesy, by which federal courts defer to
state courts to make the initial determination as
to all claims, federal or state, raised in a case. For
example, petitions for HABEAS CORPUS (release
from unlawful imprisonment) by an inmate of
a state prison are not heard by a federal court
until after all state remedies are exhausted (see
Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S. Ct. 587, 94
L. Ed. 761 [1950]).
As with most legal doctrines, there are
exceptions to the exhaustion-of-remedies
requirement. A party bringing a CIVIL RIGHTS
action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 is not required
to exhaust state remedies before filing suit in
federal court. In Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457
U.S. 496, 102 S. Ct. 2557, 73 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1982),
the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff—who
claimed she was denied employment by a state
university because of her race and her sex—was
