Brodowy v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that plaintiffs, including Jenson, “were not entitled to the benefits of the two-step increase in pay received by controllers who transferred at a time when the [General Schedule] system was in effect”
• concluding that Jenson and other plaintiffs “were not entitled to the benefits of the two-step increase in pay received by controllers who transferred at a time when the [General Schedule] system was in effect for all the facilities”
• observing that the plaintiffs “were being paid pursuant to ... the administrative order that adopted the GS pay system for the interim period pending conversion of the air traffic controllers [to the PMS.]”
• impliedly recognizing the FAA’s authority and discretion to adopt and incorporate another portion of Title 5, the General Schedule compensation system, into the FAA’s Personnel Management System
• “Because the distinction between the two forms of dismissal has no apparent practical effect in this case, however, we need not remand for purposes of correcting the judgment in that respect.” (emphasis added
• “Where plaintiffs have invoked a money-mandating statute and have made a non-frivolous assertion that they are entitled to relief under the statute, we have held that the Court of Federal Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).