Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Alexander, Secretary Of The Army v. Fioto

• 1976 • 430 U.S. 634 • Burger Court
In the case of Alexander, Secretary of the Army v. Fioto (1976), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fioto, a civilian employee at an army depot who was dismissed from his position due to alleged inefficiency. The Civil Service Commission upheld this dismissal without providing him with a hearing or any form of procedural safeguards. The court held that such action violated Fioto's Fifth Amendment rights to due process and reversed the decision made by lower courts which had sided...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1976
Docket: 75-1704
430 U.S. 634
97 S. Ct. 1345
51 L. Ed. 2d 694
1977 U.S. LEXIS 72
Argued: Mar 01, 1977

Alexander, Secretary Of The Army v. Fioto

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Alexander, Secretary of the Army v. Fioto (1976), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fioto, a civilian employee at an army depot who was dismissed from his position due to alleged inefficiency. The Civil Service Commission upheld this dismissal without providing him with a hearing or any form of procedural safeguards. The court held that such action violated Fioto's Fifth Amendment rights to due process and reversed the decision made by lower courts which had sided with Alexander, Secretary of the Army. This ruling affirmed that federal employees have constitutional protection against arbitrary dismissals without proper procedures being followed.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Alexander, Secretary of the Army v. Fioto, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart, argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding back pay awards under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The dissenters believed that once a violation is established in such cases, it should be presumed that some damage resulted unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. They disagreed with placing an additional burden on victims to prove they were qualified for promotions denied due to discrimination; instead suggesting employers bear this responsibility as they are better positioned to provide relevant information about job qualifications and requirements. Furthermore, they felt denying back pay based on lack of qualification could potentially allow discriminatory practices to continue without consequence if those discriminated against weren't fully aware or prepared for advancement opportunities at their workplace due to systemic bias.

Opinion written by Justice JPStevens
Decided: Apr 04, 1977
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms