Whether the Third Circuit erred in jurisdictional transfer and federal employee wage calculations under the Tucker Act and FLSA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Did the Third Circuit err by failing to transfer the appeal to the Federal Circuit, even though the Tucker Act was irrefutably involved in the District Court’s rulings? 2) What recourse (if any) does a federal employee have if, for a given pay period, he is paid at an hourly rate that is (far) below the hourly rate that was promised by the federal employer, but which is still greater than the federal minimum wage? A) Assuming if the federal employee does have a remedy, is that remedy equitable or legal in nature? Given this Court’s recent rulings in SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 §.Ct. 2117 (2024), would the federal employee have a right to a jury trial? 3) Does the “single week” calculation set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 apply equally to non-overtime / regular pay calculations? Namely, when a federal employee is paid on a biweekly basis (once every 2 weeks), and then for a given 2-week pay period he is paid nearly nothing for his first-week’s 40 hours but then paid more than double the federal minimum wage on his second-week’s 40 hours, or vice versa, would the federal employee then have a valid FLSA claim? Or would the 2-week average negate a claim? For example, suppose if a federal employee was paid hourly at $20/hour, but then in a given 80-hour pay period, for the first week of that pay period he was only paid at $1.50/hour for those 40 hours (i.e. $60); and then on the second week of , that same pay period, he worked another 40 hours for which he was paid his full $20/hour rate (i.e. $800); and then a few days later he received a single check, for both of those weeks, in the amount of $860 (i.e. gross pay, before deductions). Would this federal employee then have a valid FLSA claim? 1 4) Should a U.S. Court of Appeals hastily affirm (in literally just 25 hours) both a novel jurisdictional issue, as well as very complex bench trial verdict? And in particular, do so for a verdict that was the exact opposite of the evidence presented at trial? .