New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Adams v. United States

2/8/2006

 
Federal Employees’ Entitlement To Unpaid Back Overtime Wages Does Not Constitute Property Protected By The Fifth Amendment

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the federal government’s power summarily to limit its obligation to its employees for back overtime pay. The case involved Congress’s attempt to save funds by retroactively eliminating liability under administrative law for overtime wages claimed by over 14,000 mid- to high-level federal employees. For years, federal agencies had resisted the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime standards (which Congress extended to federal workers in 1974) to their higher level employees, claiming that these employees were exempt as executive, administrative, or professional employees.  In litigation brought in the early 1990s challenging the agencies’ position, the courts found that the employees were eligible for overtime, which, under then applicable administrative law, entitled them to compensation for unpaid overtime for a six-year period amounting in the aggregate to as much as $460,000,000. Faced with this liability, the Comptroller General overruled 16 years of administrative law precedent and retroactively applied a two-year statute of limitations to the employees’ claims, thereby depriving them of compensation for four years of the full six-year period.  The employees successfully lobbied Congress, which in 1994 overruled the Comptroller General’s decision by statute, P.L. 103-329 § 640 (Sept. 30, 1994), eliminating the two-year statute of limitations and thereby recognizing that six-years’ compensation was owed.  Ultimately, however, federal administrators secured passage of another statute by Congress that effectively nullified the 1994 legislation. The employees then sued to recover the full overtime to which they were entitled in the Court of Federal Claims, lost, and appealed to the Federal Circuit, on the ground that by reneging on its 1994 recognition of their full claims, Congress effected a taking under the Fifth Amendment.  Consistent with its core concern for protecting private property against unjust and arbitrary government regulation, 

NELF filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to recognize the government’s obligations to the employees for the payment of money as a property right within the purview of the Fifth Amendment. Otherwise, NELF argued, the government could alter other obligations, like bond payments, as it had altered its overtime wage commitment to its employees, with no recourse for those thereby deprived of payment. NELF argued on historical grounds and by analogy that the Fifth Amendment’s Taking Clause protected the employees’ claims for unpaid wages which, therefore, would survive the retroactive reduction of the applicable statute of limitations wrought by the federal administrators and Congress.   The Federal Circuit disagreed, determining that the employees’ wage claims were not “property,” but simply “property interests,” protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, not the Takings Clause. The hurdle for the government’s retroactive cancellation of mere “property interests” is relatively low. The Federal Circuit directly addressed, and rejected,  NELF’s argument that the overtime wages at issue were similar to the interest due to clients on lawyers’ trust fund accounts, which the Supreme Court has found to be property, and not merely property interests, for Fifth Amendment purposes. The Federal Circuit held that the Supreme Court precedent cited by NELF was limited to the particular facts of that case and did not apply to the federal employees’ claims.  The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari on April 13, 2005, and NELF reiterated its arguments in the amicus curiae brief it filed in support of the petition on July 6, 2005.  The petition for certiorari was denied on October 3, 2005.


Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001