“Drill here, drill now” has become a political hot topic as gas prices have been soaring. One argument against drilling: The oil companies are not even drilling with existing leases. A decision from a federal appeals court finds that the government reneged on off-shore leases off the California coast and kept the companies from exploring and tapping off-shore resources. The government has been ordered to pay more than $1.1 billion to the leaseholders.
If an agency cancels an employee’s leave that had been approved, should the agency be liable for the employee’s expenses? An agency and a union agreed to such a provision but it was disapproved by by the agency as being outside the agency’s duty to bargain. A federal court has agreed with that position.
An Air Force Air Traffic Control Specialist was fired for not maintaining a certification required by the agency. A court upholds the agency’s right to set requirements, despite the former employee’s assertion that the requirement was “patently unfair.”
A federal court has handed another defeat to Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson in their efforts to receive damages from various high-level officials, including Vice President Cheney.
A federal employee who was found to be “rude and obnoxious” ended up being fired as the incident occurred after he had already signed a “last chance” agreement with the agency. The employee waived his appeal rights with the agreement but a federal court sends the case back to the MSPB anyway.
An Air Force employee who was fired for giving false information on her background investigation questionnaire contended she had answered correctly as she understood she was only to report being fired from a federal job–not the times she was fired by a private sector employer. After review by a court, she remains fired from the Air Force job.
A personnel specialist with 30 years of federal service argued that his long employment history and a recent mid-term evaluation should have been considered in a decision to remove him from federal service. But, says a federal court, the only performance that is relevant in this case is his performance during a 60-day evaluation period. His removal stands.
A majority of a federal appeals court finds that lack of sexual desire is a major life function giving rise to disability discrimination. A strong dissent argues that the issue is one the government has no business inquiring into or knowing and should not be held accountable for discrimination under these circumstances.
Searching for an angle in his appeal, this former Postal Service employee argued the agency erroneously believed it would not hire an ex-felon. He also argued he should get priority consideration because he was a veteran. But a federal court finds the MSPB did not have jurisdiction in his appeal.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court’s summary judgment and sent a federal agent’s discrimination complaint under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 back for trial.
