Purchase Solution

Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond

Not what you're looking for?

Ask Custom Question

Read Chapters 1-2 of the Tiefer/Shook textbook
Read Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond Case from text at pp. 13-19
Read Appeal of University of California, San Francisco from text at pp. 688-693
Review Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm (Links to an external site.)
Scan relevant Reference Sources and Internet Websites listed under Course Resources for outside reading material concerning Government Procurement LawComplete case briefs for two assigned cases:

Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond Case from text at pp. 13-19;
Appeal of University of California, San Francisco from text at pp. 688-693
Instructions:

Submit a written "Case Brief" for both of the above cases. Providing a "Case Brief" will improve your critical legal thinking and writing skills and help you gain a better understanding of the Court's decision and the underlying law affecting an area of government procurement.

The format for your written "Case Brief" consists for five parts:

Case name and citation
Key Facts
Legal Issue(s) Presented before Court
Holding of the Court
Court's Rationale or Reasoning for its Decision
Take a look at the following link for additional guidance on how to write a written case brief: http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html (Links to an external site.). You are not required to complete steps 6 or 7 discussed at the above web site.

Your challenge will be to condense the material in your text yet at the same time ensure that you sufficiently cover the 5 parts noted above.

You are required to write your answers with Microsoft Word (Times New Roman, 12 pt) and include your names on all pages for grading purposes.

Purchase this Solution
Solution Summary

The Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner versus Charles Richmond Case is examined.

Solution Preview

Case name and citation
Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond
CITATION
496 US 414 (1990)

Key Facts

The facts of the case were that prior to 1982, individuals were ineligible for disability benefits under certain criteria, which included earning a minimum of 80% of their current pay for the two succeeding calendar years for the current position that the individual occupied prior to their retirement, and the petitioner in this case, Charles Richmond was provided the requirements for 1982 instead of the amended version that made individuals ineligible in any succeeding calendar year. Richmond applied for disability retirement in 1981, and was approved by the Office of Personnel Management, which he received throughout the next four years. After the law was amended in 1982, Richmond continued to meet the new requirements wherein he remained eligible for retirement benefits because he only worked part time, which kept his earnings low enough to remain eligible for the benefits under the newly amended guidelines.

When Richmond was offered the opportunity to increase his pay, he sought advice from the Office of Personnel Management on whether he would remain eligible for retirement disability payments ...

Solution provided by:
Stephen Washington, MS
Education
  • BS, Sam Houston State University, 1903 University Avenue, Huntsville, Tx 77340
  • MS, Prairie View A&M University
Recent Feedback
  • "awesome"
  • "awesome"
  • "Awesome appreciate the assistance."
  • "Thanks awesome. more to follow"
  • "awesome, Thanks for the assistance"
Purchase this Solution
Free BrainMass Quizzes
Paradigms and Frameworks of Management Research

This quiz evaluates your understanding of the paradigm-based and epistimological frameworks of research. It is intended for advanced students.

Organizational Leadership Quiz

This quiz prepares a person to do well when it comes to studying organizational leadership in their studies.

Cost Concepts: Analyzing Costs in Managerial Accounting

This quiz gives students the opportunity to assess their knowledge of cost concepts used in managerial accounting such as opportunity costs, marginal costs, relevant costs and the benefits and relationships that derive from them.

Change and Resistance within Organizations

This quiz intended to help students understand change and resistance in organizations

Learning Lean

This quiz will help you understand the basic concepts of Lean.

View More Free Quizzes
Related BrainMass Solutions

  • Case Brief of OPM, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond (1990)

    581357 Case Brief of OPM, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond (1990) This is a case brief of Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond - Citation: No. 88-1943. Supreme Court of the United States. 496 U.S. 414. (1990).

  • Equitable Estoppel Departments

    The Family Court, Richmond County, Leddy, J., 129 A.D.2d 301, 492 N.Y.S.2d 1013, held that petitioner was not estopped from asserting paternity claim, and that results of human leucocyte antigen blood tissue test and parties' testimony was sufficient

  • Search and Seizure Under the Fourth Amendment

    The IRS agents seized without a warrant several cars of the petitioner which were located in a public place. The IRS agents, thereafter, went to petitioner's office and entered with force without a warrant.

  • Tax Law Case

    123722 Tax Law Case Case: Gregory v. helvering, 293 US 465 (1935). If you can't open the case you can find at at findlaw.com. See the attached file. U.S. Supreme Court GREGORY v.

  • Court Case Briefs

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARION P. FRY, Dr., ü No. 03-70379 Petitioner, v. ý DEA No. BC4410-09-m DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, OPINION Facts Dr.

  • The Accomplishments of Marshall Thurgood

    Before becoming a judge he was a lawyer and in 1934 Marshall was given the job of an assistant to the special counsel Charles Hamilton who was worked in Baltimore in a branch of the NAACP.

  • Locate cases to illustrate Disparate Impact & Disparate Treatment

    When petitioner, who subsequently advertised for qualified personnel, rejected respondent's re-employment application on the ground of the illegal conduct, respondent filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging violation

  • Disparate Treatment

    In this case the analysis is that the petitioner must establish a prima facie case of discrimination, then the employer must state the non-discriminatory reasons for his actions, the petitioner must then state the reasons why he feels that the plea of

  • Miles & Snow Strategy for FedEx

    The focus of FedEx has always been technologies in people. It will also hire people who are competent in technology. The innovations come from the combination of marketing research personnel and product development.

View More Related Solutions