According the Govexec.com: The Supreme Court heard arguments about the extent of federal [and postal] employees’ immunity from on-the-job lawsuits.

Under the 1988 Westfall Act, federal employees are immune from suits so long as the Attorney General certifies that they were doing their job when the incident in question occurred. The government then substitutes itself as the defendant.

In the case argued Monday (October 30), Osborn v. Haley, the high court must decide whether the Attorney General can certify an act as job-related simply by denying that the incident ever occurred. If an employee is sued for an act clearly not in his or her job description, can the government defend the employee anyway if they believe in the employee’s innocence?

From Cornell Law School

In Osborn v. Haley, the Court will examine the circumstances for granting immunity to a federal employee and removing to a federal forum when that employee is accused of a state law tort. Osborn argues that a federal forum and immunity are inappropriate when alleged conduct is outside the scope of employment. Haley responds that the interests of the United States and the employee require a federal forum and immunity to protect the employee from frivolous lawsuits. Any decision the Court makes will involve hard distinctions between competing statutory provisions, thus forcing the Court to engage in significant policy determinations about federal employee immunity and the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Pat Osborn sued Barry Haley, a United States Forest Service manager, in state court, alleging that Haley had influenced her employer, Land Between the Lakes Association, to fire her and that, in so doing, Haley had acted outside the scope of his employment. Pursuant to the Westfall Act, the United States Attorney General certified that Haley was acting within the scope of his employment and successfully removed the case to federal district court. Once there, the United States denied that Haley had interfered with Osborn’s employment and proposed to substitute itself for Haley. The district court, however, assumed the veracity of Osborn’s allegations and refused substitution, remanding the action to state court. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently reversed, ruling that the lower court must resolve the factual disputes underlying the scope question and that the Westfall Act forecloses remand to the state court. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for plaintiffs seeking to bring suit against federal employees and will likewise affect the way that the federal government and its employees respond to such suits.