Reply to NYT: Judge Pauses RIF Plans

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "NYT: Judge Pauses RIF Plans "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.[/quote]

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them. [/quote]

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question. [/quote]

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues. [/quote]

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that. [/quote]

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing.  I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics