This 2008 Supplement updates the main text with recent developments. Topics discussed include the development and structure of the federal judicial system; cases and controversies; the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; the distribution of judicial power among federal and state courts; review of state court decisions by the Supreme Court; civil actions in the district courts; federal common law; jurisdiction of the district courts; suits challenging official action; limitations on district court jurisdiction; federal habeas corpus; problems of district court jurisdiction; and appellate review of federal decisions.

Managing public employment cases in today's volatile, fast changing legal arena is no easy task. Just keeping up with the complex developments in constitutional, labor, civil service, administrative, and common law can be a full-time job. Aspen Publishers' Public Employee Discharge and Discipline is the definitive work on every aspect of public employment law. This invaluable two-volume resource is the only one of its kind to deal with all public employment disciplinary and discharge issues for federal, state and municipal employees. The Third Edition offers thorough analysis and in-depth discussion of such essential topics as: First Amendment and whistleblowing Public sector collective bargaining and arbitration Due process in discipline and discharge Administrative and judicial review Title VII, ADA, FMLA, and other discrimination laws Sexual harassment under 1983, Title IX, and Title VII Drug testing Invasion of privacy Applicability of common law tort and contract principles of wrongful discharge Summaries of federal and state cases Also, with Public Employee Discharge and Discipline, you will also get a BONUS CD-ROM containing over 30 easy-access, customizable forms as well as current surveys of state and federal cases! Public Employee Discharge and Discipline has been updated with the latest developments, including: Latest developments in the movement to limit or abrogate public employment collective bargaining Gross v. FBL Financial Services, a Supreme Court decision requiring an employee to prove that age discrimination was andquot;the soleandquot; and andquot;but forandquot; cause of discharge under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. and§ 623(a) Adoption of Gross andquot;Sole Motiveandquot; Standard by Seventh Circuit in Fairley v. Andrews and Serwatka v. Rockwell Analysis of Thompson v. N.A. Stainless L.P., a 2011 unanimous Supreme Court decision that retaliation against a fiancandée for an employee's Title VII claim was actionable Discussion of Staub v. Proctor, another 2011 unanimous Supreme Court decision that a supervisor's bias may be andquot;a motivating factorandquot; for, and a proximate cause of, a discriminatory discharge, if it played some role in contributing to it, whether or not a non-biased decisionmaker conducted an independent investigation Evidentiary issues in discrimination litigation, including Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, a Supreme Court holding that andquot;me tooandquot; evidence of age discrimination - comments against other employees by other supervisors - may be admissible if relevant to the culture of the employer and Reid v. Google, Inc., a California Supreme Court decision that non-decisionmaker co-workers' andquot;stray remarksandquot; were relevant to an age discrimination claim Discussion of 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, a Supreme Court decision that a CBA providing arbitration as the sole remedy for ADEA claims and noting that Gilmer andquot;fully applies in the collective bargaining contextandquot; City of Ontario v. Quon, wherein the Supreme Court upheld monitoring of employer issued text-messaging devices to determine whether costs to the police department were being unduly inflated by personal calls as a andquot;reasonableandquot; search under the Fourth Amendment In re Golinski, a Ninth Circuit decision that denial of health benefits to married homosexual federal employee under the Health Benefits Act, 5 U.S.C. and§ 8903(1) because of a purported ban under the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. and§ 7, was impermissible under principles of statutory interpretation and other decisions that DOMA violated Equal Protection Continuing a