Greenstreet v. Social Security Administration
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
543 F.3d 705 (2008)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Lance Greenstreet (plaintiff) had been an employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA) (defendant) for 11 years when he had a violent outburst and broke office equipment. In response, the SSA placed Greenstreet on leave and then terminated his employment, even though Greenstreet made restitution for the damage. Greenstreet’s union filed a grievance challenging the termination, which went to arbitration. At arbitration, Greenstreet claimed that although some consequences were appropriate for his conduct, termination was too severe. The arbitrator agreed, concluding that based on Greenstreet’s prior positive work and disciplinary history and the fact that Greenstreet made restitution, termination was unreasonable. As a remedy, the arbitrator ordered Greenstreet to be reinstated without back pay. Greenstreet timely petitioned the court for review of the remedy. According to Greenstreet, reinstatement without back pay was essentially a time-served suspension. Greenstreet argued that this was an arbitrary penalty because his suspension without pay was determined solely by the time it took to resolve the arbitration. The SSA responded by citing decisions under the Back Pay Act, which provided for back pay to employees who had been affected by unjustified or unwarranted personnel actions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Linn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
