Evers v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff’s request that his prospective employers be given good references was not ripe where plaintiff did not indicate that he had or would pursue such employment, and agency had not stated that it would fail to provide adequate references
• noting that “the characterization or labeling of claims by the pleader is not controlling” in determining the CDA’s applicability
• holding Bivens claim that defendants “ ‘pinned a badge of infamy’ upon [plaintiff] by the mere fact of terminating his contract ” to be “essentially contractual” and thus fall within CDA (emphasis in original)
• explaining the “closer case” where government officials “defamed [the contractor] by making negative false statements to third parties,” which may allege a claim sounding in tort
• describing “the remedies available for a procedural due-process violation” as court- ordered “notice and hearing”
• finding claim unripe where the plaintiff sought assurances of favorable job references even though he had not applied for, nor been denied, any future employment or favorable references

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).