Feliciano v. Department of Transportation
Issues
Is a federal civilian employee who is called or ordered to active duty during a national emergency entitled to differential pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a) regardless of whether their duty is directly connected to the national emergency?
This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if any civilian employee who is called to active military duty during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay—compensation for the difference between their civilian pay and military pay—under 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a). Feliciano contends that all civilian employees called to duty during a national emergency should receive differential pay. The Department of Transportation (“DOT”) counters that 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a) requires the civilian employee’s work to be related to a contingency operation rather than merely coinciding temporally with the national emergency to qualify for differential pay. The outcome of this case has profound implications for the United States military’s effectiveness and financial security of military reservists.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.
Nick Feliciano served as a civilian air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration and a member of the Coast Guard Reserve. Feliciano v. Dep’t of Transp. (“Federal Circuit”) at 2. From July to September 2012, Feliciano performed active-duty service. Id. His service was pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
Additional Resources
- Daniel Wilson, Justices Will Hear Reservist’s Case Over Denied Top-Up Pay, Law360 (June 24, 2024).
- Allen Smith, Supreme Court Will Consider Denial of Differential Pay for Reservist, SHRM (September 19, 2024).
- FEDWeek Staff, High Court Sets Hearing on Reservist Differential Eligibility, FEDWeek (October 29, 2024).