TITLE

Challenging Government contracts

AUTHOR(S)
Skotzko, Eugene
PUB. DATE
August 1970
SOURCE
Monthly Labor Review;Aug70, Vol. 93 Issue 8, p73
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Reports on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting civil service workers the rights to challenge public contracts if those contracts have adversely affected job interests. Details of the case Payne versus the American Federation of Government Employees.
ACCESSION #
6016842

 

Related Articles

  • Washington report. Jackson, Raynard // National Minority Politics;Nov94, Vol. 6 Issue 11, p30 

    Reports that the United States Supreme Court started its 1994-95 term by agreeing to review the Transportation Department's programs aimed at steering highway construction projects to minority businesses. Financial incentives to contractors that subcontract work to minority and economically...

  • On the Road. Reddinger, Paul // ABA Journal;Apr91, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p112 

    Focuses on the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 'Milwaukee County Pavers Assoc. v. Fiedler,' which dealt with Wisconsin's set-aside program for 'disadvantaged' road-building enterprises. Inconsistency with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 'City of Richmond v. J.A....

  • Supreme Court Report.  // American Bar Association Journal;Nov76, Vol. 62 Issue 11, p1483 

    Presents updates of Supreme Court cases in the U.S. as of November 1976. Decision concerning the regulation of the Civil Service Commission that barred aliens from federal employment; Limitation in the application of Eleventh Amendment in case involving a state government that was found to have...

  • CDA PREVENTS CONTRACTORS FROM MAKING GOVT. CONTRACT DISPUTES PERSONAL.  // Construction Claims Monthly;Aug2013, Vol. 35 Issue 8, p57 

    The article discusses the question of whether construction contractors can sue individual U.S. government employees. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1999 ruled that federal employees could be sued as cited in the case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The U.S. Court...

  • Big decisions.  // World (0888157X);7/12/2014, Vol. 29 Issue 14, p10 

    The article reports on the U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 19, 2014 affirming that public employees will testify in courts as citizens not as public employees and their employers cannot discipline them for their testimony.

  • Federal partnership training network advances toward maturity. Mason, Linda; Struebing, Laura // Quality Progress;Sep96, Vol. 29 Issue 9, p8 

    Discusses the role of the Quality Partnership Network in enhancing the work environment of employees and managers of the federal government. Composition of the special training network; Aim to implement the ideas of reinventing government by reempowering employees; Partnership between the...

  • Employee Speech & Management Rights: A Counterintuitive Reading of Garcetti v. Ceballos. Dale, Elizabeth // Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law;2008, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p175 

    In the two years since the decision came down, courts and commentators generally have agreed that the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos sharply limited the First Amendment rights of public employees. In this Article, I argue that this widely shared interpretation overstates the...

  • Labor and the Supreme Court: significant decisions of 1976-77. Mounts, Gregory J. // Monthly Labor Review;Jan78, Vol. 101 Issue 1, p12 

    Reports on the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on various labor cases from 1976 to 1977. Prohibitions against employment discrimination; Collective bargaining activities of public employees; Provisions of unemployment benefits.

  • Supreme Court Rules For Public Employers In Targeted-Bias Case. Walsh, Mark // Education Week;6/18/2008, Vol. 27 Issue 42, p23 

    The article focuses on a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding public workers who sue employers on alleged job discrimination. The court sides with employers and workers will be restricted from suing on grounds of arbitrary or vindictive discrimination. Comments from several Justices are...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics