Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Partial Reversal of Dismissal of Action by Air Traffic Controllers' Union Against Federal Service Impasses Panel, and Employment Cases

By FindLaw Staff on June 01, 2010 4:25 PM

National Air Traffic Controllers Assn. v. Fed'l Serv. Impasses Panel, No. 08-5479, involved an action by an air traffic controllers' union against the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Federal Labor Relations Authority, seeking both a declaratory judgment that the FSIP had jurisdiction over an impasse involving the FAA and an injunction requiring the FSIP to assert jurisdiction over all such pending and future impasses.  The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action in part, holding that none of the relief sought by the union could be obtained from the FAA.  However, the court reversed in part, holding that, because the union did not seek review of a decision of either the FSIP or the General Counsel, the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Moses v. Howard Univ. Hosp., No. 08-7087, concerned an action against a hospital claiming retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, on the ground that, even after he had filed for bankruptcy, plaintiff continued to hold himself out before the district court as a valid plaintiff, a position "clearly inconsistent" with his pursuit of relief in bankruptcy.

Porter v. Shah, No. 09-5167, involved an action alleging various acts of retaliation and race and sex discrimination by plaintiff's employer, the United States Agency for International Development.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant in part, holding that 1) plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's legitimate reasons for not promoting him to two positions; 2) res judicata barred certain of plaintiff's claims; and 3) defendant's allegedly retaliatory performance assessment did not constitute a materially adverse employment action.  However, the court reversed in part, on the grounds that 1) a reasonable juror could conclude that plaintiff was substantially more qualified for the position of Deputy Chief in defendant's Personnel Operations Division than the person selected to fill it; and 2) defendant's unfavorable interim performance assessment of plaintiff was a materially adverse employment action.

Brooks v. Dist. Hosp. Ptnrs., L.P., No. 09-7036, concerned a Title VII employment discrimination action.  The court of appeals reversed, holding that 1) because plaintiffs' claims were separated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) and because the dismissal of appellants' claims constituted the adjudication of the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties in a multiple party case, the dismissal was eligible for Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification; and 2) plaintiffs properly invoked the single-filing exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement to join a preexisting lawsuit.

Related Resources

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard