How the EEOC’s Maintenance of an “Alleged Offenders” Log Can Help Prevent the Next Harvey Weinstein

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JOSEPH SCOPELITIS

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and recent graduate Joseph A. Scopelitis argue that the EEOC should maintain a log of “alleged offenders” to help prevent the next Harvey Weinstein. Estreicher and Scopelitis explain why such a log would effectively balance the interests of the alleged offender and victim, the employer, and the public.

Read More

Oliva v. United States

Docket: 19-2059

Opinion Date: June 15, 2020

Judge: Timothy B. Dyk

Areas of Law: Government Contracts, Labor & Employment Law

Oliva worked for the VA, 2000-2016. In 2015, Oliva challenged the VA’s issuance of a letter of reprimand for Oliva accusing a supervisor of improperly pre-selecting an applicant for a position; Oliva claimed that his email constituted protected whistleblowing. Under a Settlement Agreement, the VA agreed to provide a written reference and the assurance of a positive verbal reference, if requested; Oliva’s Waco supervisor would not mention the retracted reprimand. Oliva was terminated from his employment in April 2016, for performance reasons. Oliva claims that the VA twice breached the Settlement: in March 2015, when Oliva applied for a position in the VA’s El Paso medical center the reprimand letter was disclosed and in February 2016, when Oliva applied for a position in the VA’s Greenville healthcare center a Waco employee disclosed that Oliva was on a Temporary Duty Assignment. The Claims Court held that Oliva’s complaint plausibly alleged breaches of the Agreement that resulted in the loss of future employment opportunities. Oliva sought $289,564 in lost salary and lost relocation pay of either $86,304 or $87,312. The Claims Court then held that Oliva had not stated plausible claims to recover lost salary or relocation pay. The Federal Circuit reversed. Oliva plausibly claimed that the alleged breaches were the cause of his lost salary. Oliva’s termination from his Waco job does not undercut that plausibility.

Inserso Corp v. United States

Docket: 19-1933

Opinion Date: June 15, 2020

Judge: Richard Gary Taranto

Areas of Law: Government Contracts

The U.S. Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) awarded contracts for the opportunity to sell information technology services to various federal government agencies. Inserso did not receive an award; its total evaluated price was the 23rd lowest in a competition for 20 slots. DISA attached a debriefing document to its notice, including the total evaluated price for the awardees and some previously undisclosed information on how DISA evaluated the cost element of the proposals. Inserso sent follow-up communications, noting that several awardees in the small-business competition had also competed in the full-and-open competition as part of joint ventures or partnerships. Inserso asked whether those entities had received similarly detailed debriefings and expressed concern that, if so, the earlier debriefing would have provided unequal information giving a competitive advantage to some bidders. DISA stated that all unsuccessful bidders in both competitions were given similarly detailed information. The Federal Circuit ruled in favor of the government. Because Inserso did not object to the solicitation before the awards, when it was unreasonable to disregard the high likelihood of the disclosure at issue, Inserso forfeited its ability to challenge the solicitation. The court did not reach the issue of whether DISA’s disclosure prejudiced Inserso.

Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States

Docket: 18-2194

Opinion Date: June 15, 2020

Judge: Pauline Newman

Areas of Law: International Trade

SolarWorld filed an antidumping duty petition concerning certain photovoltaic products imported from China. After two remands, the Trade Court affirmed rulings by the Department of Commerce selecting Harmonized Tariff Schedule Heading 7604 for valuation of the aluminum frame inputs to the photovoltaic modules and offsetting the antidumping duty cash deposit rate to account for export subsidies. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Commerce’s use of subheading 7604.29.65 to value the aluminum frames is supported by substantial evidence. Commerce’s offset practice is reasonable under the statutory plan because it fosters consistency in investigations and administrative reviews. The practice balances the dumping margin against deterrence, lowers the combined antidumping/countervailing cash deposit rate, and avoids the inequity of double application of duty.