In Osborn v. Haley, Osborn was an employee working for a private contractor that was hired by the Forest Service, a government agency. Haley was an employee of the Forest Service who spoke with Osborn's employer about her performance on the job, and as a result Osborn was fired. This went to the state district court, as Osborn felt she had been unfairly terminated. The defense invoked the Westfall Act, an act which protects government employees who are acting within the scope of their jobs immunity from torts. This caused the case to be moved to federal courts, and the defendant became the United States instead of Haley. Since the United States is under sovereign immunity, the case would have to be dismissed.
Osborn argued against this removal from the district court to the federal court, because she claimed that Haley did not act within the bounds of his job, thus the Westfall Act could not be applied to the situation. The district court accepted Osborn's allegations, and remanded the case back to the state district court. This move was appealed, and the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit decided that the district court should not have remanded the case because there was a federal question involved when the Westfall Act was brought into the discussion. The main question in the case revolved around who was the one to make the decision as to whether or not a federal employee is acting within the parameters of a job.
Eventually the case made it to the Supreme Court, where the Court decided that if a government employee is doing something that is part of his or her job, the case must go to the federal courts. At this point, it cannot be remanded to state court. The decision as to whether or not the employee is acting within the bounds of the job is made by the Attorney General.
Click here to learn more about Steven Jannace of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg