A federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a decision of the Secretary of Labor concerning FECA when the Secretary violates a clear statutory mandate or prohibition.... Therefore, this court should affirm the district' court’s FTCA judgment because the Government has shown its willingness to violate a clear statutory mandate. Because, at this point, the Secretary has not rendered a decision that we could consider as violating a clear statutory mandate, we reject this contention. White also alleges that he has been deprived of an FTCA cause of action, a species of property, without due process of law. We have, however, previously upheld the FTCA’s exclusive remedy provision to a similar constitutional challenge. See Benton v. United States, 960 F.2d 19, 22-23 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in making this argument, White
holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment holding that extension of exclusive liability to project owners did not violate due process or equal protection rights of injured workers holding that fecas exclusive remedy provision did not deprive injured federal employee of equal protection and due process rights even though employees ftca suit was barred because the feca bar applies only to those claims arising out of injuries incurred in the scope of employment and the government has a legitimate reason for maintaining a federal workers compensation program in this manner holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws holding that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 provides the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination by federal agencies