The administration is in this case because it is a Civil Service employment matter: that Civil Service employees must take their complaints before the Civil Service Review Board- not a court.
Cheryl Hall was a Civil Service employee.
It would seem, given the circumstances, that Cheryl could make claims under other law- I don't know why she hasn't -or wasn't able to.
Link to the case is at reply 167.
Now, you kooks go back to having your ball....
"Hall contends that the CSRA does not preclude her Bivens action because although the CSRA provides for administrative or judicial review of the action taken against her, her Bivens claim is not against her supervisor. Hall's argument is without merit, however.
The salient fact here is that the wrongful acts Hall alleges were taken against her arose out of her federal employment relationship. Because they did arise out of her federal employment, Bush and Zimbelman dictate that Hall's claim is precluded."
This is cool- the judges made a list of the CSRA violations by Clinton's bunch:
"...In any event, we note that the CSRA appears to provide a remedy for all of the actions on which Hall premised her S 1985(1) claim.
See 5 U.S.C.A. S 2301(b)(2) (West 1996) (stating that federal employees "should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management");
5 U.S.C.A. S 2302(b)(3) (West 1996) (prohibiting "repri- sal for the refusal . . . to engage in . . . political activity");
5 U.S.C.A. S 2302(b)(8)(A)(i) (West 1996) (prohibiting reprisal for the "disclosure of information . . . which the employee . . . reasonably believes evi- dences" the "violation of any law, rule, or regulation");
5 U.S.C.A. S 2302(b)(9)(D) (West 1996) (prohibiting reprisal for "refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law");
Fausto, 484 U.S. at 446 (describing 5 U.S.C.A. S 2302 as prohibiting "unlawful dis- crimination, coercion of political activity, nepotism, and reprisal against so-called whistleblowers"). "
It doesn't occur to you to question the effect of this ruling or why the DoJ should expend resources in defending it, does it? You'd better think twice before referring to your fellow FReepers as "kooks", boy. You just never know when you'll have to face us at a FReep.
Of course, you might just feel secure in your insults by the fact that you never plan on attending any FReep in the future. That would make you something less than a FReeper, wouldn't it?