No. 20-1229

James W. Robertson, Sr. v. Intratek Computer, Incorporated

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-08
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
CVSGAmici (1)Response RequestedRelisted (3)
Tags: administrative-scheme arbitration-enforcement employment-rights federal-contract government-subcontractor mandatory-arbitration non-waiver-provision statutory-interpretation whistleblower-protection
Latest Conference: 2022-05-12 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

Under 41 U.S.C. § 4712, employees of government
subcontractors may not be retaliated against for reporting
violations of laws, rules, or regulations related to the competition for or negotiation of a federal contract. 41
U.S.C. § 4712(a)(1).
In section (c), titled "Remedy and Enforcement
Authority," the statute provides a very specific scheme of
rights and remedies and how to enforce them, including a private cause of action in federal court, district court
enforcement of agency orders, and appellate review. Id.
at § 4712(c). The final subsection of section (c) states: "The
rights and remedies provided for in this section may not be waived by any agreement, policy, form, or condition of
employment." Id. at § 4712(c)(7).

1. Does mandatory compelled arbitration of claims
under 41 U.S.C. § 4712 disrupt the administrative scheme
set up by Congress to remedy and enforce violations of 41
U.S.C. § 4712?

2. Did Congress intend to prohibit enforcement of
mandatory employment arbitration agreements in 41 U.S.C. § 4712, even if the statute does not expressly
refer to arbitration, when it (a) expressly provided for a federal trial in the remedy and enforcement section and
(b) expressly prohibited waiver of any rights and remedies
provided as a condition of employment?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does mandatory compelled arbitration of claims under 41 U.S.C. § 4712 disrupt the administrative scheme set up by Congress to remedy and enforce violations of 41 U.S.C. § 4712?

Docket Entries

2022-05-16
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-22
Supplemental brief of petitioner James W. Robertson, Sr. filed. (Distributed)
2022-04-11
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
2021-10-04
The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
2021-07-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-20
Reply of petitioner James W. Robertson, Sr. filed. (Distributed)
2021-07-02
Brief of respondent Intratek Computer, Incorporated in opposition filed.
2021-05-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 2, 2021.
2021-05-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 2, 2021 to July 2, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-05-03
Response Requested. (Due June 2, 2021)
2021-04-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-03-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 7, 2021)

Attorneys

Intratek Computer, Incorporated
Jacob Charles CohnGordon & Rees, Respondent
Heidi J. GumiennyGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Respondent
James W. Robertson, Sr.
Robert Joseph WileyRob Wiley, P.C., Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Amicus