Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Barbara J. deWEEVER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant

618 F.2d 685

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-03-28
Topic
general

McKAY, Circuit Judge. The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court properly awarded interest against the United States on a backpay award based on the 1972 Amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, which brought federal employees within the coverage of Title VII. It is settled that interest may be assessed against the federal government only pursuant to express statutory or contractual authorization. United States v. Alcea Band of Tiilamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 49, 71 S.Ct. 552, 552, 95 L.Ed. 738 (1951); United States v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Barbara J. deWEEVER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
deWEEVER v. UNITED STATES,618 F.2d 685(10th Cir. 1980)
BARBARA J. deWEEVER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 78-1445.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Submitted March 13, 1980.
Decided March 28, 1980.
Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Victor R. Ortega, U.S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M., Robert E. Kopp and Freddi Lipstein, Civ. Div., Dept. ofPage 686Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.

Chris Lucero, Jr., Albuquerque, N. M., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
Before BARRETT, DOYLE and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
McKAY, Circuit Judge.
[1] The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court properly awarded interest against the United States on a backpay award based on the 1972 Amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, which brought federal employees within the coverage of Title VII.

[2] It is settled that interest may be assessed against the federal government only pursuant to express statutory or contractual authorization.United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks,341 U.S. 48,49,71 S.Ct. 552,552,95 L.Ed. 738(1951);UnitedStates v. Goltra,312 U.S. 203,207,61 S.Ct. 487,490,85 L.Ed. 776(1941);Smyth v. United States,302 U.S. 329,353,58 S.Ct. 248,252,82 L.Ed. 294(1937). The denial of interest absent express authority is based on sovereign immunity. We agree with the First and Third Circuits that Title VII as amended to include federal employees does not provide the necessary express statutory authorization for the award granted by the trial court.Fischer v. Adams,572 F.2d 406,411(1st Cir. 1978);Richersonv. Jones,551 F.2d 918,925(3rd Cir. 1977).

[3] The judgment of the district court is reversed with directions to dismiss the petition for interest on the backpay award.