Thursday, April 14, 2005

Judges Grill Johnson's Lawyers During Oral Arguments

Roll Call reports on a case before the DC Circuit Court of appeals on an interesting question related to personnel in Congressional offices.

Quick note of background. For the most part, Hill staffer work at the pleasure of their member. The place is, to a large extent, a revolving door of activity since most staffers are not paid much, work rediculous hours and use the time as a jumping off point for a career. While many staffers are fired in a given year, they are often fired to conduct detrimental to their boss--do a google search on Jessica Cutler or Mel Martinez's counsel on teh Schiavo memo--most quit.

Back to this case, a former chief of staff to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) has filed a discrimination suit against Johnson. Johnson's lawyers are arguing that the Constitution's "Speech and Debate Clause" provides immunity from suit in these kinds of cases.

The Speech and Debate clause prohibtis the questioning of members of Congress about the Speech or Debate in either hour or in any other place. Johnson is arguing that her firing of her staff is a action protected under the Clause.

Most staff actions that are related to the legislative business of the member are protected under the Speech and Debate clause or else the Member would not be able to do the job they were elected to perform. But the question in this case is whether personnel decisions, i.e. the hiring, firing, pay or disciplinary matters of Hill staff are legislative or administrative acts. If the act is legislative, it is protected by the speech and debate clause.

Personnel decisions have nothing to do with legislation--even remotely. True, staffers are hired to carry certain legislative functions, but the actual activity of hiring them is not. Congress should be accountable for its personnel decision if they are discriminatory and can be proven as such. While staffers may be fired for any reason (including convenience) without warning, it may be difficult to prove discrimination.

Johnson is on extremely shaky ground here and the suit against her should be permitted to go forward.

No comments: