Skip to main content

American Federation of Government Employees v. United States

Fed. Cl.May 10, 2000No. No. 00-130CCited 21 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Firestone
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' bid protest action for lack of standing, concluding that displaced federal employees and their unions lack the requisite standing to challenge government cost comparison decisions under the Tucker Act and FAIR Act.

What This Ruling Means

**Federal Workers Lose Right to Challenge Job Outsourcing Decisions** This case involved federal employees and their union who tried to stop the government from outsourcing their jobs to private contractors. The Defense Logistics Agency had conducted a cost comparison study to decide whether to keep the work in-house with federal employees or give it to outside companies. When the study concluded that private contractors would be cheaper, the affected workers and their union sued to challenge this decision. The court ruled against the federal employees and dismissed their case entirely. The judge determined that displaced government workers and their unions don't have the legal right (called "standing") to challenge these outsourcing decisions in court under federal law. Essentially, the court said these employees couldn't even bring this type of lawsuit. This ruling matters significantly for federal workers because it limits their ability to fight job outsourcing through the courts. When government agencies decide to contract out federal jobs to save money, affected employees have fewer legal options to protect their positions. The decision makes it harder for federal workers and their unions to challenge government decisions that could eliminate their jobs, even if they believe the cost comparison process was flawed or unfair.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Danziger v. United States
Fed. Cl.May 2026
Plaintiff Win
Diaz
Fed. Cl.Mar 2026

UNREPORTED OPINION DISMISSING CASE: The plaintiff filed his claim for wrongful discharge more than 18 years after April 16, 2007, and as a result his claims are untimely under 28 U.S.C. &167; 2501. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff&039;s claims. The defendant&039;s [17] motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment. No costs are awarded

Defendant Win
Michalovic Crawley v. United States
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED ORDER granting Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice. Joint Status Report due by 1/8/2021. Signed by Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (lb) Service on parties made. Keywords re Order on Motion, Reported Order: Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Conditional Certification

Plaintiff Win
Adams
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED ORDER Denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(6). The United States' Answer is due by 12/28/2020. The parties shall submit a Joint Preliminary Status Report by 1/11/2021. Signed by Judge David A. Tapp. (jm) Service on parties made.

Plaintiff Win
Abrantes
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED OPINION denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). On or before 2/12/2021, defendant is directed to FILE an answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' complaint and on or before 2/12/2021, the parties are directed to CONFER and FILE a Joint Status Report informing the court of their positions on the consolidation of this case with any other matters before the court. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (mp) Service on parties made. Modified font of text on 12/13/2020 Keywords re: Reported Order on Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Dismiss RCFC 12(b)(6) Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5550 Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596 Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341-42 Government Employees Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (GEFTA) Pub. L. No. 116-1, 133 Stat. 3 (2019).

Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.