Unanimous decision allows federal employee to continue fight for six days of owed pay

  • Supreme Court rules in favor of Stuart Harrow’s 11-year fight for six days of back pay
  • Justice Elena Kagan pens opinion on the case
  • Case sent back to federal appeals court that initially refused to hear it

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Stuart Harrow, a 73-year-old federal employee, allowing him to continue his 11-year quest for six days of back pay stemming from a 2013 furlough. The case, which was featured on the Wall Street Journal’s front page, involved a missed filing deadline due to a government board’s inability to form a quorum and a switch in email servers. Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion stated that ‘pursuant to’ is a phrase with multiple meanings, making it rarely useful. Harrow’s case will now return to the federal appeals court that initially refused to hear it.°

Factuality Level: 8
Factuality Justification: The article provides accurate and objective information about Stuart Harrow’s case and the Supreme Court’s decision. It includes relevant details about the case, quotes from those involved, and explains the legal reasoning behind the decision. However, it does not include any personal opinions or sensationalism.°
Noise Level: 3
Noise Justification: The article provides a specific and interesting story about an individual’s legal battle for back pay, but it does not offer any broader analysis or implications beyond the case itself. It lacks context on the larger systemic issues that may have contributed to Harrow’s situation and does not explore potential consequences of decisions on those who bear the risks.°
Key People: Stuart Harrow (Federal Employee at the Defense Department), Scott Dodson (Center for Litigation and Courts at the University of California College of Law in San Francisco), Joshua Davis (Center for Litigation and Courts at the University of California College of Law in San Francisco), Justice Elena Kagan (Supreme Court Justice)

Financial Relevance: Yes
Financial Markets Impacted: No
Financial Rating Justification: The article discusses a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a federal employee’s quest for back pay, but it does not directly impact financial markets or companies.°
Presence Of Extreme Event: No
Nature Of Extreme Event: Other
Impact Rating Of The Extreme Event: Minor
Extreme Rating Justification: There is no extreme event in the text. The article discusses a legal case involving a federal employee’s quest for back pay, which was ruled in his favor by the Supreme Court.°

Reported publicly: www.wsj.com