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

Plaintiff applied for a position as Director of the Library of Congress and when he was passed over for the job, he claimed that the Library of Congress violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, defendant sought a new trial, arguing that the district court erred by instructing the jury that he had to prove that unlawful discrimination was the "sole reasons" for his non-selection. Although the court agreed that "sole reason" was not the correct standard, the jury instructions themselves corrected any error by defining "sole reasons" as "but-for" causation. The court recognized, however, that its recent Title VII employment discrimination cases have caused some confusion and the court took the opportunity to clarify the requirements the statute placed upon plaintiffs and the courts. View "Ponce v. Billington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this qui tam suit alleging that the District of Columbia and its schools violated the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, by submitting a Medicaid reimbursement claim without maintaining adequate supporting documents. The district court dismissed the case, relying on the court's precedent in United States ex rel. Findley v. FPC-Boron Employees' Club. Because the court concluded that the Supreme Court had implicitly overruled Findley in Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, the court reversed. View "Davis v. DC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals claiming to be the Tribal Council of the Timbisha Shoshone, argued that the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act, Pub. L. No. 108-270, section 3, 118 Stat. 805, 806, was an unconstitutional taking of tribal property. The district court granted the Government's motion to dismiss, holding that the Distribution Act was constitutional. Plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing where the court had a letter from the Executive Branch recognizing the Gholson faction, not Kennedy faction, and therefore, the court did not reach the merits. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. View "Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, et al. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

Trump Plaza sought review of an order of the Board, in which the Board concluded that Trump Plaza violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), by refusing to bargain with the Union. Trump Plaza conceded that it refused to bargain with the Union but claimed that the Board erred in certifying the Union. The court believed that the Trump Plaza dealers could not reasonably have read the leaflet or website at issue to suggest that the Board endorsed unionization. In regards to Trump Plaza's challenge to the mock card-check rally and its corresponding certification document, the court, deciding on the merits, held that the Board was plainly wrong to conclude that there was an "absence of evidence" of dissemination. Consequently, the court granted Trump Plaza's petition, vacated the Board's order, and remanded to the Board to assess the severity of the challenged conduct and to reassess the extent of the mock card-deck dissemination under its precedent. View "Trump Plaza Assoc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request with the NSA seeking disclosure of any communications between NSA and Google regarding encryption and cyber security. EPIC's FOIA request arose out of a January 2010 cyber attack on Google that primarily targeted the Gmail accounts of human rights activists. The court held that any response to EPIC's FOIA request might reveal whether NSA did or did not consider a particular cyber security incident, or the security settings in particular commercial technologies, to be a potential threat to U.S. Government information systems. Any such threat assessment, as well as any ensuing action or inaction, implicated an undisputed NSA "function" and thus fell within the broad ambit of Section 6 of the National Security Agency Act, Pub. L. No 86-36, section 6(a), 73 Stat. 63. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Electronic Privacy Info. Center v. National Security Agency" on Justia Law

States both appealed the district court's grants of summary judgment in favor of HHS, which upheld HHS's disallowance of certain Medicaid claims for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) as ineligible for "medical assistance" under the "Institution for Mental Diseases" (IMD) exclusion set forth in section 1905(a) of 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. (Medicaid Statute). Because HHS correctly concluded that the disputed claims were not eligible for FFP under the plain language of the IMD exclusion and the under-21 exception, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Virginia Dept. of Medical Assist. Svcs. v. HHS, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. On appeal, defendant sought to vacate her sentence and remand the case for a new arraignment. The court rejected defendant's contention that her constitutional rights were violated because she did not enter into her plea knowingly and intelligently, and that she did not receive Spanish translations of all the documents in the case. Finding no error in the district court's acceptance of her plea, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Rubio" on Justia Law

The Union filed charges against the Company alleging that the Company had committed multiple unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3), (1), by suspending and discharging employees for engaging in protected "concerted activities." The Board found merit to virtually all of the charges and ordered the Company to undertake certain remedial actions. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement because substantial evidence and controlling precedent supported the Board's findings, and the Board's well-reasoned decision amply explained its judgment. The court amplified two points related to certain employees. Therefore, the court denied the Company's petition for review and granted the Board's application for enforcement. View "Stephens Media, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Taxpayer appealed a judgment of the Tax Court rejecting two contentions: first, a constitutional claim that certain employees of the IRS's Office of Appeals were "Officers of the United States," so that their appointments must conform to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, art. II, section 2, cl. 2, and second, an argument that the employees in question abused their discretion in rejecting his proposed compromise of the collection of his tax liability. Because the authority exercised by the Appeals Office employees whose status was challenged here appeared insufficient to rank them even as "inferior Officers," the court rejected the constitutional claims. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in those employee's decision in this case. View "Tucker v. Commissioner, IRS" on Justia Law

This case arose out of an accident in which an 81-year-old truck driver for Bob Orton Trucking Co., was killed by a large pipe that fell off of his truck during a delivery to the Kennecott Utah Copper Mine. Petitioner was an independent contractor hired by the mine's owner, Kennecott to construct a tailings dam; it was responsible for receiving deliveries of materials such as the pipes in question. The MSHA cited petitioner for a violation of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. On review, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission upheld the citation, finding that petitioner, though not the principal operator of the mine, "supervised a process, the unloading of pipes," and that as a supervisor of that process it could be liable without fault for violations occurring in the process. Petitioner challenged that conclusion both as a matter of statutory interpretation and on the facts. The court held that, though the statutory structure invited considerable confusion, the Commission's conclusion was consistent with the Act and there was substantial evidence of its necessary findings. View "Ames Construction, Inc. v. MSHR, et al." on Justia Law