Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesstatuteappealcompensatory damagessovereign immunity
willsovereign immunity

Related Cases

Funkhouser v. J.B. Preston Co., 290 U.S. 163, 54 S.Ct. 134, 78 L.Ed. 243
View Case »
Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 467 N.E.2d 245, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 57 A.L.R.4th 955
View Case »
Graley v. Satayatham, 343 N.E.2d 832, 74 O.O.2d 316
View Case »
Connor v. Grosso, 41 Cal.2d 229, 259 P.2d 435
View Case »
Cosden Oil & Chemical Co. v. Karl O. Helm Aktiengesellschaft, 736 F.2d 1064, 38 UCC Rep.Serv. 1645, 17 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 611
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hubbard v. Administrator, E.P.A., 982 F.2d 531, 299 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 61 USLW 2345

Facts

In 1982, Michael Hubbard applied for a position as an investigator with the EPA but was rejected due to allegations that he had improperly disclosed information while serving as a police investigator. After a lengthy legal battle, the court found that the EPA's refusal to hire him violated his First Amendment rights, and he was entitled to be reinstated. However, the issue of whether he could also receive back pay for the time he was not employed became the focal point of the appeal.

Michael Hubbard's dispute with the EPA has dragged on for more than a decade.

Issue

Did the United States waive sovereign immunity for a back pay award to an individual denied federal employment in violation of his constitutional rights?

Has the United States waived sovereign immunity for a back pay award to an individual denied federal employment in violation of his constitutional rights?

Rule

The waiver of sovereign immunity under 5 U.S.C. § 702 for 'relief other than money damages' does not include back pay awards.

The Supreme Court has counselled us repeatedly that waivers of sovereign immunity are to be construed strictly.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of 5 U.S.C. § 702 and its legislative history, concluding that there was no clear evidence that Congress intended to include back pay within the waiver of sovereign immunity. The court emphasized that back pay is traditionally viewed as compensatory damages rather than specific relief, which is what the statute addresses. The court also noted that the distinction between damages and specific relief is critical in determining the applicability of the waiver.

After scouring § 702's text and legislative history, we find no such clear evidence of an intent to waive sovereign immunity as to back pay.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision, ruling that Michael Hubbard could not receive back pay as part of the remedy for the EPA's refusal to hire him.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying back pay is Affirmed.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to back pay, thus denying Hubbard's claim for monetary compensation.

If Hubbard prevails, the government will have to pay him money to make up for wages he never earned.

You must be