JOHN ANNESSER v. INNOVATIVE SERVICE TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the CSRA precludes a Bivens action premised on conduct amounting to a prohibited personnel practice
• noting that the CSRA does not preclude “the exercise of federal jurisdiction over the constitutional claims of federal employees ... altogether”
• noting that Congress had “not inadvertently” omitted a damages remedy “against officials” when passing the CSRA
• noting that CSRA “condemn[ed] the underlying actions as ‘prohibited personnel practices’ ”
• noting that, “[a]fter Chilicky, it is quite clear that if Congress has ‘not inadvertently’ omitted damages against officials in the statute at issue, then courts must abstain from supplementing Congress’ otherwise comprehensive statutory relief scheme with Bivens remedies”
• noting that CSRA “condemn[ed] the underlying actions as ‘prohibited personnel practices’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).