No. 22-325

Adam Bruzzese v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2022-10-07
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: administrative-law adverse-employment-action constitutional-rights due-process employment-action ex-parte-statements government-employment preponderance-of-evidence procedural-fairness self-defense
Latest Conference: 2022-12-02
Question Presented (from Petition)

Can the adverse employment action against Adam Bruzzese stand if it was administered in a manner which does not satisfy due process requirements?

Can a due process claim be raised if due process violations were included as elements of an EEO claim which was dismissed without considering these violations?

Does the District and Second Circuit Courts' lack of consideration of the ATF/DOJ failure to adhere to any of the aspects of due process in administering the adverse employment action necessitate a per curiam decision in favor of Bruzzese?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can the adverse employment action against Adam Bruzzese stand if it was administered in a manner which does not satisfy due process requirements?

Docket Entries

2022-12-05
Petition DENIED.
2022-11-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/2/2022.
2022-11-03
Waiver of right of respondent Garland, Att'y Gen. to respond filed.
2022-09-26

Attorneys

Adam Bruzzese
Adam Bruzzese — Petitioner
Garland, Att'y Gen.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent