TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Orange County, New York v. United States Department of Labor

ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent

Orange Cnty., N.Y. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 636 F.2d 889 (2d Cir. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 3, 1980
Docket
No. 80-4068
Judges
Lumbard, Newman, Oakes
Citations
636 F.2d 8891980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13402

Opinion

ORDER Appeal from an order of the Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, holding that Orange County’s hiring of Mrs. Janet Allard violated the nepotism restrictions of Section 98.22 of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part. 98.

The argument that the administrative law judge misconstrued the meaning of the word “nepotism” in the regulation and because Mr. and Mrs. Allard worked in different departments no violation occurred is unavailing. Mr. Allard was both “a member of the immediate family” and “engaged in an administrative capacity.” The regulation was clearly within the power of the Secretary of Labor to adopt, 29 U.S.C. § 801 , Congress specifically so providing in respect to nepotism, see 29 U.S.C. § 825 (g). This regulation while somewhat mechanical obviously was designed to avoid problems which Congress foresaw in the administration of the CETA program.

While Orange County has standing to appeal statutory questions or questions arising under the regulations under 29 U.S.C. § 817 , it lacks standing to appeal the constitutional rights of the CETA recipients. Even if it had standing as to those, however, there is no suspect classification so as to permit a claim under the equal protection clause and no fundamental rights of liberty or property are involved so as to give rise to due process claims.

Petition to review denied; decision of the Secretary of Labor affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1982: 11983: 319822026peak 1983 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list