Murthy v. Vilsack, No. 09-5026, concerned an action by an ex-employee against the Secretary of Agriculture for breach of the terms of a settlement agreement and for non-selection to a GS-15 position in violation of Title VII. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's order partially transferring the action and partially granting summary judgment, holding that 1) the filing of an amended complaint after the 180-day waiting period expired could not cure the failure to exhaust; and 2) res judicata would not bar the filing of a new Title VII non-selection civil action after he exhausted his EEOC remedies.
St. Marks Place Hous. Co. v. US Dept. of Hous. & Urb. Dev., No. 09-5257, involved a challenge to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) decision, contending that HUD regulations prohibited HUD from requiring prepayment approval for a housing project's federally insured mortgage. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, on the ground that there was no basis for concluding that HUD's position was plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the operative regulation.
Sherley v. Sebelius, No. 09-5374, concerned an action by medical researchers challenging newly promulgated guidelines authorizing the National Institutes of Health to fund more research projects involving human embryonic stem cells than it had previously done. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal of the complaint, on the ground that plaintiffs had standing because the Guidelines intensified the competition for a share in a fixed amount of money, and thus the plaintiffs would have to invest more time and resources to craft a successful grant application.
- Full Text of Murthy v. Vilsack, No. 09-5026
- Full Text of St. Marks Place Hous. Co. v. US Dept. of Hous. & Urb. Dev., No. 09-5257
- Full Text of Sherley v. Sebelius, No. 09-5374