• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal employees who worked during the 2013 shutdown can join this lawsuit

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,347
Reaction score
38,890
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Federal employees who worked during the 2013 shutdown can join this lawsuit - The Washington Post

The Justice Department on Monday will notify more than 1 million federal employees that they can sue the government for not paying them on time during the partial shutdown of 2013.

The alerts, required under a court order, will inform personnel who worked during the budget lapse that they can join a lawsuit claiming the government owes them damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Click to expand...
Could get pricey.
 
The wording is rather odd. If you worked during the shutdown, well that likely only happened if you are "mission essential". Otherwise you didn't work during the shutdown. In some cases employees are paid back for the time off, and that can take time; so not sure if they mean getting paid back late or not being paid on time while not working.
 
American said:
The wording is rather odd. If you worked during the shutdown, well that likely only happened if you are "mission essential". Otherwise you didn't work during the shutdown. In some cases employees are paid back for the time off, and that can take time; so not sure if they mean getting paid back late or not being paid on time while not working.
Click to expand...

Looks like they were paid after they worked(i.e. late), since the funds didn't become available until a later date.
 
I thought that all the government employees affected by the shutdown were paid their wages in full?

I remember this, because during the shutdown when this was reported, I was thinking that it's only the government that would pay for work not performed.
 
Samhain said:
Looks like they were paid after they worked(i.e. late), since the funds didn't become available until a later date.
Click to expand...

So the judge is saying that they are owed the money while not working since not working was not their fault but Congress'; so even though they weren't paid because there was no money, they can sue because there should have been money.
 
American said:
The wording is rather odd. If you worked during the shutdown, well that likely only happened if you are "mission essential". Otherwise you didn't work during the shutdown. In some cases employees are paid back for the time off, and that can take time; so not sure if they mean getting paid back late or not being paid on time while not working.
Click to expand...

I assume on time. My state has a law that employees have to be paid at least once every 15 days (I think that is it) if they are hourly workers and at least once a month if they are salaried employees. The shutdown probably threw pay days off since I assume most government employees are paid monthly (actually I assume all are)
 
eohrnberger said:
I thought that all the government employees affected by the shutdown were paid their wages in full?

I remember this, because during the shutdown when this was reported, I was thinking that it's only the government that would pay for work not performed.
Click to expand...

Well the principle is not about work that wasn't performed, but about personnel sent home only because Congress couldn't pass a budget. That is, it wasn't their fault. Not a lack of funds, but a lack of appropriations.
 
Declan said:
I assume on time. My state has a law that employees have to be paid at least once every 15 days (I think that is it) if they are hourly workers and at least once a month if they are salaried employees. The shutdown probably threw pay days off since I assume most government employees are paid monthly (actually I assume all are)
Click to expand...

They are paid bi-weekly.
 
American said:
So the judge is saying that they are owed the money while not working since not working was not their fault but Congress'; so even though they weren't paid because there was no money, they can sue because there should have been money.
Click to expand...

No. Its saying that while they were paid for their work time, they were not paid on time. for example, you worked this week, and your wages should have been deposited on Friday, except you didn't get paid until March 30th. You got everything you were owed, but late.

Damages would be owed if you, for instance, had to pay late fees, interest, etc, apparently, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
 
Here's where the confusion is.

There are two groups. Essential and Non-Essential employees.

Essential Employees worked during the shutdown in 2013

Non-Essential Employees did not work during the shutdown in 2013.

Both types of employees were not paid DURING the 16 days of the shutdown

Both types of employees recieved back pay for the 16 days of the shutdown

According to the story, Essential employees are being informed they can sue the government for damages due to the fact they worked those 16 days and yet did not recieve pay on time for that work. The shutdown split between multiple pay periods, so they missed one pay check.

Non-essential employees cannot join the lawsuit because they were not WORKING during the time, so there was no issue of being paid "on time". But for essential employees, they were actually working and thus not being paid "on time" potentially entitles them to damages.
 
American said:
Well the principle is not about work that wasn't performed, but about personnel sent home only because Congress couldn't pass a budget. That is, it wasn't their fault. Not a lack of funds, but a lack of appropriations.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that justifies any sort of law suit. There are times in business when there aren't available funds for the people, and they have to take a few days off.

This smells like the attitude of 'the government can't be stopped' BS attitude. Any surprise that this is being pushed by Obama and Holder's DOJ? That was their meme all before and through the shutdown, when in fact, it was barely a ripple to most ordinary Americans, except when the administration closed things they didn't need to close just to push the same point. Has everyone already forgotten all that BS of theirs?
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't see how that justifies any sort of law suit. There are times in business when there aren't available funds for the people, and they have to take a few days off.

This smells like the attitude of 'the government can't be stopped' BS attitude. Any surprise that this is being pushed by Obama and Holder's DOJ? That was their meme all before and through the shutdown, when in fact, it was barely a ripple to most ordinary Americans, except when the administration closed things they didn't need to close just to push the same point. Has everyone already forgotten all that BS of theirs?
Click to expand...

I wasn't claiming to know all, in fact I think Z has it right. I just didn't consider it divided into 2 groups, but did note that the working part seemed odd.
 
American said:
I wasn't claiming to know all, in fact I think Z has it right. I just didn't consider it divided into 2 groups, but did note that the working part seemed odd.
Click to expand...

American, I wasn't specifically criticizing you or your post, but just contributing my observations and thoughts to the thread.

The bottom line is that both groups were paid in full, and yet, the ideologically driven legal geniuses at DOJ believe there's grounds for some sort of lawsuit. I'd like to see that suit summarily dismissed at the first hearing for lack of foundation.
 
JANFU said:
Federal employees who worked during the 2013 shutdown can join this lawsuit - The Washington Post


Could get pricey.
Click to expand...

well, my personal opinion is.. they should be paid on time as any other employee actively performing work.... and they should have their day in court if they were not.
the thing is, all these employees have been paid for that time.... the lawsuit is over financial hardships incurred because of the timing of that pay.( they were paid later, rather than on-time)

it will be interesting to see if the govt fights this tooth and nail, or if they settle
if they fight it and lose, it can get extremely costly, very quickly.. depending on the damages the judge allows to be sought. ( I get the feeling the judge will be going off of standards of FLSA and not including other damages)
additional damages beyond those delineated in FLSA, well.. i don't know if they can be sought after or not, so it's hard to even comment on them or their potential costs.

in any event, this is a new precedent, so it will be fun to watch unfold.
 
eohrnberger said:
American, I wasn't specifically criticizing you or your post, but just contributing my observations and thoughts to the thread.

The bottom line is that both groups were paid in full, and yet, the ideologically driven legal geniuses at DOJ believe there's grounds for some sort of lawsuit. I'd like to see that suit summarily dismissed at the first hearing for lack of foundation.
Click to expand...

the DOJ is not the plaintiff, nor are they representing the plaintiffs... they will be representing the defendant ( the federal govt)
the DOJ already filed a motion for dismissal, and it was rejected.

a private law firm initiated the lawsuit.
 
Thrilla said:
the DOJ is not the plaintiff, nor are they representing the plaintiffs... they will be representing the defendant ( the federal govt)
the DOJ already filed a motion for dismissal, and it was rejected.

a private law firm initiated the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Ahh. OK. Well, guess I was on the wrong side of that one. Thanks for setting me straight.

So now I get to bitch about lawyers and frivolous law suits? :)
 
eohrnberger said:
Ahh. OK. Well, guess I was on the wrong side of that one. Thanks for setting me straight.

So now I get to bitch about lawyers and frivolous law suits? :)
Click to expand...

:lol: sure thing... nobody ever get tired of complaining about lawyers and frivolous lawsuits.

for what it's worth, i think the govt is going to settle ... I don't think they want this sort of precedent to take hold...
 
Thrilla said:
:lol: sure thing... nobody ever get tired of complaining about lawyers and frivolous lawsuits.

for what it's worth, i think the govt is going to settle ... I don't think they want this sort of precedent to take hold...
Click to expand...

But if you want to avoid precedence, wouldn't you want to take it to court and have it defeated?

By settling, you are setting a precedence, one where if you are in similar circumstances, you can extract money from the government.

So that'd then become a standard part of government shutdowns, not only the government paying for work not performed, but also paying a penalty on top of that for what appears to be no damage.
 
eohrnberger said:
But if you want to avoid precedence, wouldn't you want to take it to court and have it defeated?

By settling, you are setting a precedence, one where if you are in similar circumstances, you can extract money from the government.

So that'd then become a standard part of government shutdowns, not only the government paying for work not performed, but also paying a penalty on top of that for what appears to be no damage.
Click to expand...

defeating it in court would defeat the precedent, but defeating it is not guaranteed.... there is a chance they will lose.
by settling, you admit no fault, and no precedent is set in case law.... future cases can't be guided by the case if there is no case law on the matter.

settling now also gives the govt time and opportunity to tweak the laws on the specifics of the case, which might preclude future lawsuits in similar situations.
 
Thrilla said:
defeating it in court would defeat the precedent, but defeating it is not guaranteed.... there is a chance they will lose.
by settling, you admit no fault, and no precedent is set in case law.... future cases can't be guided by the case if there is no case law on the matter.

settling now also gives the govt time and opportunity to tweak the laws on the specifics of the case, which might preclude future lawsuits in similar situations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, OK. 'Cause this little bit of foolishness and mischief needs to be nipped in the bud, frankly.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, OK. 'Cause this little bit of foolishness and mischief needs to be nipped in the bud, frankly.
Click to expand...

for the good of the plaintiffs and the defendant, i think it's good to settle now and then tweak the laws.... but I'm just speaking my opinion, nothing more.
 
Thrilla said:
for the good of the plaintiffs and the defendant, i think it's good to settle now and then tweak the laws.... but I'm just speaking my opinion, nothing more.
Click to expand...

If that's the best way to keep this type of frivolous law suite from recurring, I'm good with that. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom