Osborn v. Haley
Issues
1. Under the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, can the United States Attorney General certify that a federal employee was acting in the scope of his office or employment at the time of an allegedly harmful incident simply by denying that the incident ever occurred?
2. If a district court concludes that the Attorney General’s purported certification was not authorized under the Westfall Act, can the district court remand the case to state court or is it barred from doing so under the Act?
3. Did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case have jurisdiction to review the district court ’s order to remand, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) which states that “an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”?
Pat Osborn sued Barry Haley, a United States Forest Service manager, in state court, alleging that Haley had influenced her employer, Land Between the Lakes Association, to fire her and that, in so doing, Haley had acted outside the scope of his employment. Pursuant to the Westfall Act, the United States Attorney General certified that Haley was acting within the scope of his employment and successfully removed the case to federal district court. Once there, the United States denied that Haley had interfered with Osborn’s employment and proposed to substitute itself for Haley. The district court, however, assumed the veracity of Osborn’s allegations and refused substitution, remanding the action to state court. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently reversed, ruling that the lower court must resolve the factual disputes underlying the scope question and that the Westfall Act forecloses remand to the state court. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for plaintiffs seeking to bring suit against federal employees and will likewise affect the way that the federal government and its employees respond to such suits.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
1. Whether the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, authorizes the Attorney General to certify that the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident solely by denying that such incident occurred at all.
2. Whether the Westfall Act forbids a district court to remand an action to state court upon concluding that the Attorney General's purported certification was not authorized by the Act.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
In the spring of 2002, the United States Forest Service advertised a job opening in the business department of Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area in Western Kentucky. Brief for Respondent at 3.
Additional Resources
- Wikipedia: Federal Torts Claims Act
- Law about… Federal Courts, Torts
- Osborn v. Haley (Nos. 04-5716/5820), United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Brief for Respondents Gaye Verdi f/k/a Gaye Luber and Land Between the Lakes Association, Inc., Osborn v. Haley (No. 05-593).