Portela-Gonzalez v. Secretary of the Navy
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
109 F.3d 74 (1997)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Astrid L. Portela-Gonzalez (Portela) (plaintiff) was a sales manager at the Navy Exchange of the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station. Portela placed $484.10 worth of merchandise on layaway. The Navy Exchange later reduced the price of the merchandise. Portela canceled her layaway arrangement and repurchased the merchandise for $330.79. The Navy Exchange terminated Portela’s employment for applying an unauthorized price reduction to the purchased merchandise in violation of the Navy Exchange’s layaway policy. Portela appealed her termination to the Officer in Charge of the Navy Exchange (OIC). The OIC affirmed her termination. Portela appealed to the Commanding Officer of the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station. After a full evidentiary hearing, the Commanding Officer upheld her termination. Portela then appealed to a rear admiral who affirmed her termination. The rear admiral advised Portela of her right to appeal the rear admiral’s determination to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Portela instead challenged her termination in district court. The district court found that Portela failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies, but nevertheless reviewed the case on the merits and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Navy (defendant). Portela appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Selya, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.