The Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case decided by the Western District of Washington; two precedential opinions in cases addressing the Fair Labor Standards Act; and another precedential opinion addressing the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act and Back Pay Act. Notably, in the latter three cases, Judge Reyna filed dissenting opinions. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in cases involving the same appellant challenging decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, along with four orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the majority opinions, portions of the dissenting opinions, and links to the orders.
Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corporation (Precedential)
Appellant Treehouse Avatar LLC appeals the grant of a motion to strike portions of an infringement expert report by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Appellant also appeals the court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking expert testimony that did not rely upon the parties’ own agreed-upon construction and that the court adopted, nor erred in finding that Treehouse failed to rebut Valve’s evidence of noninfringement. We affirm.
Avalos v. United States (Precedential)
This interlocutory appeal addresses whether the government violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying federal employees who work during a government shutdown until after the lapse in appropriations has been resolved. The Court of Federal Claims determined that the employees had established a prima facie case of an FLSA violation even though the Anti-Deficiency Act legally barred the government from making payments during the shutdown. Because we determine that the government did not violate the FLSA’s timely payment obligation as a matter of law, we reverse.
REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
* * *
The Court of Claims correctly analyzed the statute and binding Supreme Court precedent. I would affirm the Court of Claims’ decision and allow the case to continue.
Martin v. United States (Precedential)
The Martin appeal asks whether the government violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying federal employees who work during a government shutdown until after the lapse in appropriations has been resolved. The Court of Federal Claims determined that it does, even though the Anti-Deficiency Act legally bars the government from making payments during the shutdown. Because we hold today in Avalos v. United States, No. 21-2008 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2022) that the government does not violate the FLSA’s timely payment obligation as a matter of law under these circumstances, we reverse.
The Marrs appeal involves an additional issue about whether the government willfully violated the FLSA, thereby extending the FLSA’s statute-of-limitations period to three years. Because we conclude that the government did not violate the FLSA, we need not reach the trial court’s statute-of-limitations determination in Marrs.
REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The majority decides this appeal on the basis of its interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Anti-Deficiency Act (“ADA”). The majority reaches a conclusion in this appeal that is contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory texts, and that is unsupported and inconsistent with the congressional purpose of the statutes. This is the same conclusion it reached in the companion case Avalos. In Avalos, I lay out in greater detail the reasons for why I would uphold the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims and find that the Plaintiffs-Appellees sufficiently plead an allegation that the government violated the FLSA when it failed to timely pay excepted federal workers their earned wages during the relevant government shutdown. For purposes of economy, I adopt and submit in this appeal my full dissent in Avalos, as set out below . . . .
Abrantes v. United States (Precedential)
The government appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims denying the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The government delayed payment to border patrol agents until the end of a partial government shutdown, as dictated by the Anti-Deficiency Act. The Court of Federal Claims ruled that the delay established a prima facie violation of the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act and an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action entitling employees to interest and attorney fees under the Back Pay Act. Because we hold that the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act and Back Pay Act do not require the government to make payments during a lapse in appropriations, we reverse.
REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The United States Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. It determined that Plaintiffs-Appellees sufficiently stated a claim for relief under the Back Pay Act and the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act (“BPAPRA”). Abrantes v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 551, 552–53 (2020).
The majority reverses and remands, holding that the Anti-Deficiency Act renders null the relevant provisions of the BPAPRA and Back Pay Act when the failure to pay timely wages is a result of a government shutdown. Maj. Op. 7–9. I disagree.
Grissom v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Mark D. Grissom worked at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, as an Administrative Officer before the Department of Veterans Affairs removed him under 38 U.S.C. § 714. Mr. Grissom appealed that decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, disputing the charges and asserting that the VA’s removal was retaliatory. The Board affirmed the VA’s decision. Because the Board’s decision as to the reasonableness of removal as a penalty is legally erroneous in view of Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021), we vacate that portion of the Board’s decision and remand. We affirm, however, the Board’s determination that Mr. Grissom failed to prove his affirmative defenses.
Grissom v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Mark D. Grissom challenges the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of his individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.