The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in a case that could significantly impact how federal employees are compensated when called to military duty. The case centers on Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), who argues that he was entitled to full salary during his military leave while serving as a Coast Guard reservist over a two-year period during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Feliciano’s case challenges whether federal civilian employees are owed their full civilian pay—or a “differential” pay—when their military service is not tied to a national emergency. The case raises important questions about the interpretation of federal law, particularly concerning the payment policies for federal workers engaged in military service under the 2008 Veterans’ Compensation Act.
Does Military Service During Non-Emergency Times Qualify for Full Pay?
At the heart of the issue is whether Feliciano’s duty, which involved escorting military vessels in Charleston, South Carolina, should qualify as service “during a national emergency,” thus entitling him to differential pay. Federal law mandates that federal employees receive pay to cover the difference between their civilian and military salaries when they are called to active duty “during a national emergency.”
While Feliciano’s service was during the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal civil service board and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that his service did not directly relate to a national emergency and, therefore, did not meet the criteria for differential pay.
The Supreme Court’s Dilemma: Navigating National Emergency Criteria
During Monday’s hearing, the justices expressed concerns about the broader implications of their ruling. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether agreeing with Feliciano’s claim would result in federal workers being entitled to differential pay in nearly every case, given that there are currently 43 national emergencies pending across the country. They cautioned that such an outcome could render other parts of the law, which set additional criteria for differential pay, irrelevant.
“The question becomes,” Justice Kagan said, “if we adopt this interpretation, we’re effectively saying that whenever there is a national emergency, almost every federal worker would qualify for differential pay, regardless of their actual duties.”
What Are the Risks for Employers and Federal Agencies?
The justices also raised concerns about the practical challenges that could arise if they ruled against Feliciano. Chief Justice John Roberts noted the potential difficulty for federal agencies in determining which employees are entitled to differential pay, given the complexity of military service orders.
Justice Neil Gorsuch further delved into how such a decision could affect private employers, who under a separate law are required to pay differential pay to servicemembers but face legal consequences for failing to do so. He questioned whether private employers would struggle to interpret military orders if they are unclear about whether the service relates to a national emergency.
Federal Agencies: Clear Guidelines or Ambiguity?
Arguing on behalf of the U.S. Department of Transportation, which oversees the FAA, Nicole Reaves emphasized that military service orders are usually clear about whether they are related to national emergencies. However, she acknowledged that there could be exceptions, raising concerns about ambiguity in some orders, particularly when determining obligations for private sector employers.
Andrew Tutt, representing Feliciano, countered by suggesting that it is possible to envision a scenario where national emergencies no longer exist, making the law’s other criteria for differential pay more applicable.
A Landmark Decision for Federal Workers?
The Court’s ruling could have wide-reaching implications for federal employees, especially those in active duty or military reserve roles, and may clarify how national emergencies impact pay policies for federal workers. The justices must carefully weigh the law’s intent against the complexities of military service and civilian employment in the modern context.
Read more: