No. 23-1140

In Re William B. Jolley

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2024-04-22
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: administrative-law administrative-procedure age-discrimination disability-discrimination due-process equal-employment equal-employment-opportunity federal-agencies judicial-review
Latest Conference: 2024-06-13 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

Is 29 C.F.R. f 1614 constitutional where Defendant HUD contends that the results of Investigation made under 29 C.F.R. ^1 1614 (HUD-00037-2019) has no value in the federal court suit where HUD-00037-2019 shows that HUD discriminated on the basis of Age and Disability according to the interpretation rules of 29 C.F.R. 1614; and where f 1614, used by all the federal agencies, has no provisions for compliance with the due process guarantee of the Constitution (No impartial tribunal, etc.); and If 1614 is suppose to cover discrimination in employment applications, employment, etc.; all "discrimination " types covered being statutory rights.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is 29 C.F.R. § 1614 constitutional?

Docket Entries

2024-06-17
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024.
2024-05-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-04-22
Motion (23M81) for leave to proceed as a veteran granted.
2024-04-03
MOTION (23M81) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/19/2024.
2024-03-25
Motion (23M81) for leave to proceed as a veteran filed.
2024-03-25
Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition filed. (Response due May 22, 2024)

Attorneys

United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
William B. Jolley
William B. Jolley — Petitioner