Leno

MEMORANDUM ***

The facts and procedural posture of the case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. We review the district court’s dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See, e.g., Hacienda Valley Mobile Estates v. City of Morgan Hill, 353 F.3d 651, 654 (9th Cir.2003); McNatt v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir.2000).

Leno contends that the Department of Veterans Affairs violated her rights by denying her an accommodation under 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (a)(b). Leno maintains that the *556 claim at issue in this appeal — to discontinue the use of certain cleaning chemicals at her workplace — was subsumed under a claim for review of a denial of reassignment that she properly filed with the EEO.

The exclusive judicial remedy for disability discrimination claims by federal employees is found under 29 U.S.C. § 791 . Boyd v. United States Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 410, 412-13 (9th Cir.1985). Under this regime, federal employees must exhaust their administrative remedies in order to establish subject matter jurisdiction in the federal courts. See, e.g., B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir.2002);…