No. 22-1118

Cody Adams, et al. v. United States

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2023-05-16
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Relisted (2)
Tags: civil-rights due-process federal-employees federal-employment hazardous-duty-pay proximity-exposure regulatory-interpretation statutory-entitlement statutory-interpretation virulent-biologicals
Key Terms:
Securities WageAndHour JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-10-06 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether federal employees who work in close proximity to individuals infected with virulent biologicals are entitled to hazardous duty pay under the regulation requiring such pay for work 'with or in close proximity to' virulent biologicals

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Hazardous Duty Pay statute provides that a federal employee is entitled to a pay differential “for any period in which he is subjected to physical hardship or hazard not usually involved in carrying out the duties of his position.” 5 U.S.C. § 5545(d). Implementing regulations provide an “agency shall pay” hazardous duty pay differentials to employees who are assigned to perform specific enumerated duties, 5 C.F.R. § 550.904, including “working with or in close proximity to” virulent biologicals, 5 C.F.R. Pt. 550, Subpt. I, App. A. The question presented is: Under the regulation requiring hazardous duty pay for federal employees who work “with or in close proximity to” virulent biologicals, are federal employees who work in close proximity to individuals infected with virulent biologicals entitled to hazardous duty pay when such exposure is not usually involved in carrying out the performance of their regularly assigned duties? (i)

Docket Entries

2023-10-10
Petition DENIED.
2023-10-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2023.
2023-09-25
Rescheduled.
2023-08-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-14
2023-07-31
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2023-06-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 31, 2023.
2023-06-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 17, 2023 to July 31, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-06-15
2023-05-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 17, 2023.
2023-05-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 15, 2023 to July 17, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-05-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 15, 2023)

Attorneys

Cody Adams, et al.
Molly ElkinMcGillivary Steele Elkin LLP, Petitioner
Molly ElkinMcGillivary Steele Elkin LLP, Petitioner
National Border Patrol Council
Matthew Bradley BachopDeats Durst & Owen PLLC, Amicus
Matthew Bradley BachopDeats Durst & Owen PLLC, Amicus
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent