Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Allen v. Heckler

780 F.2d 64 (1985)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Allen v. Heckler

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

780 F.2d 64 (1985)

Facts

Eleon Allen represented a class of excepted service employees who had been ex-patients of a federal mental-health facility before they were hired to work at the facility pursuant to the facility’s affirmative-action plan. The affirmative-action plan allowed Allen and other former patients to be hired for jobs at the facility that were comparable to ones worked by competitive service counterparts. Competitive service jobs, unlike excepted service ones, required employees to pass a competitive civil-service examination. Although competitive service jobs and their excepted service counterparts required the same skills, were judged based on the same standards, and paid the same, excepted service jobs did not have the same job protections, opportunities for advancement, or retirement potential as competitive service jobs. Unlike physically disabled or mentally retarded excepted workers, handicapped excepted workers had no way to convert their excepted service to competitive service without applying, passing the competitive-civil-service examination, and starting on equal footing with first-time federal workers. There were no arrangements for handicapped excepted workers to receive seniority credit or to enjoy the benefits of their on-the-job experiences. Allen and the class members sued the directors of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Personnel Management (defendants) in a United States district court. The class alleged that the facility’s affirmative-action plan discriminated against them based on their previous medical condition granting them fewer benefits than their competitive counterparts. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the class after concluding that the affirmative-action plan did not provide adequate advancement opportunities to handicapped workers. The district court ordered that all handicapped excepted workers be converted to competitive status with full benefits within two years, similar to the conversion authorized by the plan for other excepted workers. The government appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Mikva, J.)

Dissent (Friedman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership