UC Law SF Professors Secure Supreme Court Victory for Federal Employee Rights
Professors Scott Dodson and Joshua Davis of the Center for Litigation and Courts successfully represented a client in a precedent-setting Supreme Court case that expands access to justice for federal employees.
Professors at UC Law SF鈥檚 (CLC) recently scored a major victory for their client at the U.S. Supreme Court 鈥 one that makes it easier for federal employees to get their job-related disputes heard in federal court.
CLC Director Scott Dodson wrote the winning case briefs while CLC Research Professor Joshua Davis argued live before the Court鈥檚 nine justices in Washington, D.C. The result was a unanimous opinion in favor of their client, Stuart Harrow.
Harrow, a longtime employee of the U.S. Department of Defense, spent over a decade challenging his loss of about $3,000 in pay from a six-day furlough during the 2013 government shutdown. Due to bureaucratic problems outside of his control, Harrow missed a 60-day deadline to appeal the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board鈥檚 decision against him to federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the deadline was 鈥渏urisdictional,鈥 meaning courts lack the power to bypass it.
Harrow sought help from Dodson, one of the nation鈥檚 leading experts on jurisdictional deadlines. Dodson, who has written extensively on the topic, penned a petition for Supreme Court review, helping Harrow take his case to the highest court in the land.
鈥淐LC doesn鈥檛 usually provide direct representation, but Mr. Harrow鈥檚 case was so compelling, and the issue was so squarely within CLC鈥檚 mission and expertise, that we just had to,鈥 Dodson said.
During oral arguments in March, Justice Neil Gorsuch telegraphed the Court鈥檚 future decision, saying: 鈥淗ere we are in the Supreme Court of the United States over a $3,000 claim. I鈥檓 just wondering why the government鈥檚 making us do this.鈥
The Supreme Court the deadline is not jurisdictional and therefore not written in stone. The CLC professors said federal employees tend to represent themselves in such cases and are more likely to make mistakes, such as missing a deadline. In Harrow鈥檚 case, notification of a long-delayed decision by the Board was sent to an old, abandoned email address. He wasn鈥檛 alerted about the decision and therefore could not file a timely appeal.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a fundamental question of access to justice: not having a bunch of strict rules that can trip up workers who often represent themselves against government lawyers who know how to work within the system,鈥 Davis said.
Davis, who is also a shareholder at , described the case as a David-and-Goliath-type matchup with a federal employee going up against some of the nation鈥檚 most sophisticated lawyers at the U.S. Solicitor General鈥檚 Office, which represents the federal government in Supreme Court cases. Davis said the CLC helped Harrow reshape the law and ensure that more federal employees like him will get their day in court.
鈥淚n some ways, it鈥檚 a distinctively American story that a government worker with persistence can get his case brought all the way up the Supreme Court of the United States,鈥 Davis said.
Dodson considers it just the latest and most prominent example of CLC鈥檚 work to spread knowledge of civil litigation and the courts through academic conferences, scholarly writing, and amicus, or 鈥渇riend of the court,鈥 briefs, in which CLC offers its expertise to judges weighing important cases that can shape the evolution of law.
鈥淲e鈥檙e both honored and delighted to have obtained this result for Mr. Harrow,鈥 Dodson said, 鈥渂ut it鈥檚 also a win for justice and fairness everywhere.鈥
UC Law SF鈥檚 nonpartisan was launched in 2021 to expand knowledge of civil litigation, alternative dispute resolution, and the courts. CLC works to disseminate that knowledge to the bench, bar, legal academy, and public. It also supplies resources and guidance to members of the UC Law SF community interested in civil litigation.