Union to take NSPS case to Supreme Court

Lawyer Blogs

[##_1L|1253232586.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]Officials of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) said today they would file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Defense Department from implementing portions of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). The officials announced their plans after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied on  Aug. 10 a motion by AFGE and the United Department of Defense Workers Coalition for an en banc, or full court, review of the court's earlier decision upholding NSPS regulations and overturning a lower-court ruling.

AFGE expects this week to file a motion to stay the issuance of the appeals court’s mandate in the case and within 90 days proceed with a petition to ask the Supreme Court to take the case, officials said.

“AFGE has been presented with the opportunity to bring this issue to the honorable justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and will face this head on,” John Gage, AFGE national president, said in a statement. “The [Bush] administration and DOD need to be taken to task on this issue. It’s time to stop the bullying and abuse this administration is directing toward DOD employees.”

Gage added that if NSPS were to be fully implemented, DOD workers “would be subjected to an arbitrary, dishonest and unfair working atmosphere.”

A series of court decisions on NSPS began in February 2006, when a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan gutted NSPS provisions that related to labor relations, collective bargaining, independent third-party review, adverse actions and DOD’s proposed internal labor relations panel. However, on May 18, the Court of Appeals upheld the regulations in a 2-1 decision.

Related listings

  • Microsoft Pays A Mere $511M in Legal Fees

    Microsoft Pays A Mere $511M in Legal Fees

    Lawyer Blogs 08/13/2007

    Legal payouts of $511 million in one year would be enough to sink many companies. But for Microsoft, it amounts to a small victory. That's what the Redmond company paid in legal settlements and related expenses in its fiscal year 2007, ended June 30....

  • Qantas May Face Big US Fines

    Qantas May Face Big US Fines

    Lawyer Blogs 08/13/2007

    [##_1L|1351888955.png|width="201" height="201" alt=""|_##]QANTAS has admitted it may have to shell out far more than the $47 million set aside to pay potential fines and damages that could arise from a United States price-fixing investigation. Managi...

  • Former Corrections Officer Sentenced to 21 Months

    Former Corrections Officer Sentenced to 21 Months

    Lawyer Blogs 08/13/2007

    Ricky Bernard, a former Bureau of Prisons corrections officer at the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas, was sentenced today to 21 months in prison for engaging in sexual misconduct with three inmates. Bernard previously pleaded guilty in federal co...

New York Commercial Litigation Law Firm - Woods Lonergan PLLC

Founded in 1993 by Managing Partner James F. Woods, Woods Lonergan PLLC has built a strong reputation as a resourceful and industrious firm that provides clients with clear, concise, and straightforward answers to their most challenging legal issues. Partner Lawrence R. Lonergan, who joined the firm in 2008, has been a friend and colleague to Mr. Woods for over 40 years and shares the same business philosophy. Woods Lonergan PLLC’s collective experience and expertise enables the firm to expeditiously and effectively analyze the increasing challenges clients face in an evolving business and legal world, in many instances, avoiding unnecessary time and expense to our clients. Our mission is simple: provide cutting-edge expertise and sound advice in select areas of the law for corporate and business clients. We thrive on providing each client with personalized attention, forceful representation, and a collaborative team effort that embraces collective knowledge.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read