Legal Opinion
Adair v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided February 28, 2006No. 05-392 CPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HEWITT, Judge.
Plaintiffs, current and former employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, seek to recover hazardous duty pay or an environmental differential, corresponding additional contributions to their retirement plans, and interest, for exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke permitted by defendant during the course of their employment.1
I. Background
Plaintiffs are current and former General Schedule, Wage Supervisor, and Wage Grade employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Correctional Institute in Jesup, Georgia (FCI-Jesup). Pis.’ Am. Compl. ¶ ¶ 1, 4-5. Plaintiffs…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Matthews v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Adair v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Rotech Healthcare Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Arakaki v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Jaynes v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.