Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant brought suit against officials of the Administrative Office, solely in their official capacities, alleging that they rejected her job application in violation of her constitutional rights. The district court dismissed appellant's complaint, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because the Administrative Office had sovereign immunity from suit. The court reversed the judgment and held that appellant's claim fell within the Larson-Dugan exception to the general rule of sovereign immunity. Since the district court did not address appellees' alternative jurisdiction arguments, the court left all of these arguments for consideration on remand. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pollack v. Duff, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner, an Afghan national, became a senior Taliban official in 1994. He asserted, however, that he was not a part of the Taliban forces. The court found no clear error in the district court's factual determinations where the evidence established that petitioner was at least more likely than not a part of the Taliban forces. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the petition. View "Khairkhwa, et al v. Obama, et al" on Justia Law

Appellee, an employee and participant in Hilton's retirement plan, sued for violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Appellee alleged that the Plan's benefit accrual formula was impermissibly backloaded and that Hilton, the Plan sponsor and administrator, violated both ERISA and the Plan by failing to credit certain years of service when calculating employees' vested credit. The court affirmed the district court's finding, that the Plan was impermissibly backloaded and that Hilton failed to calculate participants' vesting credit properly, because the district court handled the case well within its discretion. View "Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Retirement Plan, et al" on Justia Law

When an employee's name and Social Security number listed on Form W-2 do not match in the SSA's database and this happens to a sufficient number of employees, the SSA sends the employer a "no-match" letter. In 2006, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request with the SSA seeking the names of the 100 U.S. employers that generated the most no-matches from 2001 through 2006. The agency declined to produce such records, concluding that they were exempt under FOIA Exemption 3. The district court agreed with the SSA. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the records sought by Judicial Watch would disclose "return information" and were protected from disclosure by the Tax Code, 26 U.S.C. 6103(a). Moreover, the Haskell Amendment was not applicable here because Judicial Watch sought data that could be associated with a particular taxpayer, the employer. View "Judicial Watch, Inc. v. SSA" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought substantial wage concessions on the basis of competitive pressures it claimed to be facing. Seeking to verify this contention, the union requested information about petitioner's prices and customers. Petitioner denied the union's request and then locked out the bargaining unit employees. Relying on a line of decisions endorsing a broad discovery standard, the Board found that the union's information request was relevant to duties as the employees' bargaining representative and that petitioner's information withholding and lockout were both unlawful. The court agreed with the Board's application of its discovery line of cases to an employer's competitive disadvantage claim and agreed that the union was entitled to the requested information to verify petitioner's assertions. The court disposed of petitioner's remaining arguments and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order. View "KLB Industries, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Recognizing the growing importance of mobile data in a wireless market in which smartphones are increasingly common, the FCC adopted a rule requiring mobile-data providers to offer roaming agreements to other such providers on "commercially reasonable" terms. Verizon challenged the data roaming rule on multiple grounds. The court held that Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., plainly empowered the FCC to promulgate the data roaming rule. And although the rule bears some marks of common carriage, the court deferred to the FCC's determination that the rule imposed no common carrier obligations on mobile-internet providers. In response to Verizon's remaining arguments, the court concluded that the rule did not effect an unconstitutional taking and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. View "Cellco Partnership v. FCC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 65-month sentence of imprisonment, arguing that it was both procedurally and substantively defective. Among other arguments, defendant contended that his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and substance abuse issues made it substantively unreasonable to sentence him to more than a brief period of incarceration, followed by a treatment at a private facility. The court disagreed with defendant's contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Warren" on Justia Law

In response to a tariff filing by Northern Natural Gas, FERC issued an interpretation of section 4(f) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717c(f). Northern objected to the interpretation and further argued that even if it was correct, its effect, should be prospective only. The court rejected both claims, holding that FERC's interpretation was fully consistent with the obvious meaning of the statute. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Northern Natural Gas Co. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Erie petitioned for review of the Board's decision finding that Erie violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). Erie challenged the Board's finding of unlawful refusal to bargain, arguing that the parties were at a bargaining impasse. Alternatively, Erie argued that even if the court upheld the Board's finding of an unfair labor practice, the bargaining remedy imposed exceeded the Board's authority. Because the court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the Board's decision, the court granted the petition for review and vacated the Board's decision and order. The court need not decide the challenge to the Board's remedy. View "Erie Brush & Manufacturing Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Good-Nite withdrew recognition on Unite Here! Local 2 based on anti-union petitions that the Board found were impermissibly tainted by Good-Nite's unlawful assistance to the decertification effort in violation of sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). Good-Nite petitioned for review on the principal ground that the Board applied the wrong line of its precedent in Hearst Corp., and expanded the conduct covered by it, unreasonably departing from its settled causality precedent in Master Slack Corp. The court held that the Board's Hearst presumption was reasonable and consistent with the Act, and that the Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law