Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
William A. Reilly, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Henry G. Cisneros, As Secretary, United States Department Ofhousing and Urban Development, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 44 F.3d 140
Argued Dec. 14, 1994.Decided Jan. 3, 1995
Appeal from the November 16, 1993, judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York; John T. Elfvin, Judge.
William A. Price, Buffalo, NY (Bruce A. Goldstein, Bouvier, O'Connor, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Stephan J. Baczynski, Asst. U.S. Atty., Buffalo, NY (Patrick H. NeMoyer, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, LUMBARD and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William A. Reilly appeals from the November 16, 1993, judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York (John T. Elfvin, Judge) ordering his former employer, the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), to pay him back pay for discharging him in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 791 (1988), but ending the back pay award as of the date Reilly rejected an offer of another position with HUD. The primary issue is whether the District Court erred in finding that Reilly's rejection of this offer was unreasonable, a finding that ended entitlement to back pay accruing after the date the offer was rejected.
We affirm the judgment of the District Court on the opinion of Judge Elfvin, reported at 835 F.Supp. 96.