翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Eli Aflalo ・ Eli Alaluf ・ Eli Alon ・ Eli Amir ・ Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum ・ Eli and the Thirteenth Confession ・ Eli Apple ・ Eli Arnstad ・ Elgin Theatre ・ Elgin Theatre (Ottawa) ・ Elgin Tower Building ・ Elgin Township ・ Elgin Township, Antelope County, Nebraska ・ Elgin Township, Kane County, Illinois ・ Elgin Township, Wabasha County, Minnesota ・ Elgin v. Department of Treasury ・ Elgin V. Kuykendall ・ Elgin Vale Sawmill ・ Elgin Vale, Queensland ・ Elgin West ・ Elgin Youth Symphony Orchestra ・ Elgin's Regiment of Fencible Infantry ・ Elgin, Alabama ・ Elgin, Arizona ・ Elgin, California ・ Elgin, Illinois ・ Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar ・ Elgin, Iowa ・ Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway ・ Elgin, Kansas Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Elgin v. Department of Treasury ： ウィキペディア英語版 Elgin v. Department of Treasury ''Elgin v. Department of Treasury'', , was a United States Supreme Court case where the court ruled that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) gives exclusive jurisdiction for claims under the Act to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Additionally, the Court held that the Act bars federal district courts from ruling on matters related to the act including adverse employment actions of the federal departments, and allows the Merit Systems Protection Board to hear constitutional arguments for wrongful employee severance and adverse employment actions. It was a 6-3 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas. The case greatly limited the recourse of federal employees to the courts for adverse employment practices, allowing such recourse only to a few, specific courts as aforementioned. ==Prior to the Supreme Court== Michael B. Elgin and several other employees of the U.S. Department of the Treasury were fired for willingly and knowingly failing to register for the Selective Service, pursuant to , which forbids any federal executive employees who committed such an omission.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-45 )〕 Elgin challenged his discharge before the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming such a requirement is unconstitutional being a bill of attainder and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since only males are required to enroll in the Selective Service System. The Merit Systems Protection Board referred the case to an administrative law judge, who dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that an employee is not entitled to Merit Systems Protection Board review of agency action that is based on an absolute statutory bar to employment. The same administrative law judge also ruled that the Merit Systems Protection Board did not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of statutes. Rather than appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as is required by the CSRA, Elgin and several other petitioners appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The court denied Elgin's claims, holding that the act and Elgin's severance was constitutional. Elgin appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which ruled that federal district courts have no jurisdiction over the matter.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Elgin/ )〕 Elgin appealed to the United States Supreme Court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Elgin v. Department of Treasury」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.