[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
17-1177, Yanko vs. United States.

[00:00:34] Speaker 04:
Mr. Lechner, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:58] Speaker 06:
May it please the Court, Amara Leshner, representing Michael Yanko and the class of

[00:01:04] Speaker 06:
part-time employees who are entitled to be paid when they work to get a holiday by virtue of the In-Lieu holiday statute.

[00:01:16] Speaker 06:
There are three statutes here and one executive order that involves this case.

[00:01:23] Speaker 06:
This case is nowhere near as complicated as the three cases we've heard this morning.

[00:01:29] Speaker 06:
We do know from the Fat Tower decision of this court

[00:01:34] Speaker 06:
and from our own observation, that when Congress uses the word employee in this context, when Congress uses the word employee, it covers both full-time and part-time employees.

[00:01:49] Speaker 06:
Now, there is not one word, not one sentence, not one intimation in the three statutes and the executive order that Congress has ever intended

[00:02:02] Speaker 06:
to exclude part-time employees from in new hallway.

[00:02:08] Speaker 02:
It just is not there.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
Let me ask you a question about this hex to the statute.

[00:02:14] Speaker 02:
Is there any place in the statute where the term basic work week is used explicitly in connection with part-time employees?

[00:02:24] Speaker 02:
Now, not by reading into the word employee both full-time and part-time, but is there any place where basic work week

[00:02:32] Speaker 02:
and is equated to or used with specific reference to part-time?

[00:02:39] Speaker 06:
Yes, I believe in our brief we have some, not in these three statutes.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
No, but is there anything else in this set of sets?

[00:02:48] Speaker 06:
No, because the Congress very clearly encompassed employees are entitled to pay holidays, employees are entitled to in lieu holidays,

[00:03:00] Speaker 06:
And it's very easy when Congress wanted to and did repeatedly in these sessions.

[00:03:08] Speaker 06:
When it wanted to apply to full-time employees, it said 40-hour work week.

[00:03:14] Speaker 06:
Now, part-time employees, by definition, do not work one kind of work week.

[00:03:21] Speaker 06:
They work 16 hours, 18 hours, 22 hours, 25 hours,

[00:03:26] Speaker 06:
So it is virtually impossible from a congressional point of view to identify part-time employees with that kind of specificity, whereas by using the word employee, and as Fattower very clearly stated in the very same statute with respect to Sunday, that Congress intended, obviously, to include part-time employees as well as full-time employees.

[00:03:54] Speaker 06:
They are employees.

[00:03:56] Speaker 06:
of the United States.

[00:03:57] Speaker 06:
Now, what Congress did very clearly, and I would like to show, and I'll be very, very brief, because it really is the crux of the issue.

[00:04:06] Speaker 06:
The court below, and the government's argument that, by the way, the government admits and acknowledges that part-time employees are included as employees within the context of these statutes.

[00:04:18] Speaker 06:
So the court below made a very critical finding, and the whole case rests on that critical finding.

[00:04:26] Speaker 06:
And the finding of the court below and the government's argument here today is that part-time employees are not scheduled to work a basic work week, a basic work week.

[00:04:40] Speaker 06:
They don't have a basic work week.

[00:04:43] Speaker 06:
Now, other than the obvious reasoning that no federal employee shows up for work whenever they want to and leaves whenever they want to,

[00:04:54] Speaker 06:
They are scheduled to work.

[00:04:58] Speaker 06:
Everybody has a day's work week, and Congress simplified it.

[00:05:03] Speaker 06:
In 6101-3, Section 3, Section 2, the Congress worked with the fact that full-time employees have, quote, an administrative work week of 40 hours.

[00:05:23] Speaker 06:
That was Section 2.

[00:05:25] Speaker 06:
A and B. And then Congress went on and B to say that the head of every agency, every single agency in the federal government is instructed by this statute, 6101, that this is what they must provide with their employees.

[00:05:43] Speaker 06:
So A deals with, 2A deals with the administrative work week of 40 hours for each full-time employee.

[00:05:52] Speaker 06:
That's what every

[00:05:54] Speaker 06:
head of every agency must provide.

[00:05:57] Speaker 06:
And B, require that the work within that work week, Congress said, that work week, obviously directly referring to A, is that has to be performed within six of any seven consecutive days.

[00:06:17] Speaker 06:
Then it moves on into section three.

[00:06:20] Speaker 06:
And in section three, Congress instructed

[00:06:22] Speaker 06:
the head of every single executive agency, military departments, that with respect, quote, with respect to each employee in his organization, each employee in his organization.

[00:06:40] Speaker 06:
Now, there's subsections A through F. Subsection A could be either part-time or full-time.

[00:06:53] Speaker 06:
Subsection B clearly deals with full-time employees.

[00:06:58] Speaker 06:
The basic 40-hour work week is scheduled on five days, Monday through Friday.

[00:07:04] Speaker 06:
Section C answers your question, Your Honor.

[00:07:08] Speaker 06:
Conner said the working hours in each day in the basic work week are the same.

[00:07:17] Speaker 06:
It's a distinction as to the way they dealt with

[00:07:21] Speaker 06:
Full-time employees, in which in B, right above it, 40-hour workweek, and then in C, and in E, and in F, it talks about basic workweek for every employee, each employee.

[00:07:39] Speaker 06:
Now, if the Congress is talking about each employee, it can't mean only full-time employees.

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
But if it's using the term basic work week to mean a 40-hour week, then C excludes part-time.

[00:07:55] Speaker 06:
Not if you read the section three.

[00:07:58] Speaker 06:
Section three, Your Honor, says very clearly, with respect to each employee in his organization.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
Right, but not all of A through E, or A through F, apply to part-timers.

[00:08:12] Speaker 06:
Well, A through F is a section of three.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
We know that three doesn't apply to all employees, because some of the subsections of three, specifically, at least B, for example, doesn't apply to part-timers, right?

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
Because it specifies it.

[00:08:32] Speaker 02:
So we know that A through F, they don't all include both part-time and full-time.

[00:08:38] Speaker 06:
No.

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
Congress distinguished between one or the other.

[00:08:43] Speaker 06:
Congress said in this particular instance, a 40-hour work week.

[00:08:47] Speaker 06:
In that particular instance, it didn't say that.

[00:08:50] Speaker 06:
It said all employees.

[00:08:53] Speaker 06:
And by saying specifically with respect to each employee, the subsections must refer them to each employee unless the subsection is specifically designated for full-time, which it does in B, full-time, but in C, E, and F,

[00:09:16] Speaker 06:
It doesn't mention full-time.

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
But that assumes that the term basic work week means not just 40-hour work week, but can mean a basic work week of less than full-time.

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
But that's an assumption that the government challenges.

[00:09:35] Speaker 02:
And what I'd like to know is why is that assumption necessarily wrong?

[00:09:39] Speaker 06:
Well, if we're talking about all employees in the federal government,

[00:09:45] Speaker 06:
And Congress says, this applies to people who are full-time, and this applies to everyone else.

[00:09:54] Speaker 06:
It must mean that that's part-time.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
It's not that expressed, though.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
All it says is it says basic 40-hour work week and then says basic work week.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
I mean, the question is, why is the interpretation of basic work week

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
as being a shorthand for 40-hour basic 40-hour workweek.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
Why is that incorrect?

[00:10:16] Speaker 06:
From a legislative point of view that you're reviewing, why would Congress have specified 40-hour workweek in one subsection and not a 40-hour workweek in the other subsection when it is prefaced?

[00:10:29] Speaker 06:
And this is important.

[00:10:30] Speaker 06:
I think when the preface is each employee within the organization, every federal employee,

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
So awful.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
Your position, I just don't know this, but your position is that this is the way it works.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
The working hours in each day for every part-time employee have to be the same.

[00:10:51] Speaker 06:
No.

[00:10:52] Speaker 06:
It says that each employee has their own basic work week.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
Well, it says in Part C, the working hours in each day and the basic work week are the same.

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
And you're saying that what this means is that for both full-time and part-time employees, the working hours in each day must be the same.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
So a full-time employee works from 9 to 12 every day.

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
For a particular employee.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
For a particular employee.

[00:11:22] Speaker 02:
And you're saying that is what C means.

[00:11:25] Speaker 06:
Well, that's what it says.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
Well, but does it mean that with respect to part-timers is the question that we're struggling with.

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
You're assuming your conclusion by saying, well, of course it does.

[00:11:37] Speaker 06:
Well, we start with a premise number one.

[00:11:41] Speaker 06:
The first premise is that when dealing with employees, and Congress deals with that in 5546, when Congress deals with that in 6301, when Congress deals with that in 101,

[00:11:57] Speaker 06:
When Congress deals, when the President deals with it in the executive order, it's always employee, employee, employee, employee, which is Fattower's decision and just common sense means it's the employees of the federal government, part-time, full-time.

[00:12:15] Speaker 06:
Now, there is an exception for

[00:12:18] Speaker 06:
intermittent employees.

[00:12:20] Speaker 06:
No one talks about intermittent employees.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
Can we just focus back on the question, which is on subpart C, how do we apply working hours in each day in the basic work week are the same to part-time employees?

[00:12:35] Speaker 04:
How does that work?

[00:12:36] Speaker 06:
How does one apply it to a full-time employee?

[00:12:40] Speaker 06:
Why don't you ask my question?

[00:12:43] Speaker 06:
Every full-time employee does not work nine to five.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
Well, I'm asking about part-time employees.

[00:12:48] Speaker 06:
Well, it's the same thing.

[00:12:49] Speaker 06:
For each employee, the working hours for that employee is the same.

[00:13:00] Speaker 06:
In other words, they have two days.

[00:13:03] Speaker 06:
The sentence itself cannot mean that it applies only to full-time employees.

[00:13:10] Speaker 06:
It makes no sense for full-time employees.

[00:13:12] Speaker 01:
What I'm struggling with is

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
For a part-time employee, why would they have to work from 9 to 12 every day, Monday through Friday?

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
Maybe some days they would not work at all.

[00:13:24] Speaker 06:
Well, first of all, that sentence has nothing to do with this case per se.

[00:13:31] Speaker 06:
We're not talking about it.

[00:13:33] Speaker 06:
The claims in this case have nothing to do with that sentence.

[00:13:37] Speaker 06:
The claims in this case deal with

[00:13:40] Speaker 06:
in lieu of holidays.

[00:13:42] Speaker 01:
I understand, but you were giving it as an example for how we should interpret the basic work week and how it's distinguished.

[00:13:49] Speaker 01:
And I'm looking at it and I'm thinking, huh, but one contrary point to that might be that it doesn't seem like it would apply to part-time employees.

[00:13:57] Speaker 06:
It wouldn't apply to full-time employees either, under your assumption.

[00:14:01] Speaker 01:
I don't understand why.

[00:14:02] Speaker 06:
Well, you're saying that the working hours of each day in a basic work week are the same.

[00:14:09] Speaker 06:
Now, if you're a full-time employee who works from 9 until 5, that's one.

[00:14:17] Speaker 06:
Another one works from 10 until 6, and someone else works from 12 until 12.

[00:14:25] Speaker 06:
What you're talking about is respect to each employee.

[00:14:27] Speaker 06:
We're not talking about the group.

[00:14:29] Speaker 06:
Talking about each employee.

[00:14:31] Speaker 06:
Each employee's work week during a work week is the same.

[00:14:37] Speaker 06:
The working hours in each day in the basic work which are the same in the sense that when the work day, when they're performing work in the work day, all of the hours are working hours with the exception obviously of when they're given lunch or dinner.

[00:14:57] Speaker 06:
But it makes no sense if you're saying it makes no sense for part-time employees, it makes no sense for full-time employees.

[00:15:04] Speaker 06:
And it doesn't really have anything to do with the case, other than the fact that Congress distinguished between a 40-hour work week and everybody else.

[00:15:15] Speaker 06:
Look at, if you would, F, breaks in the working hours of more than one hour may not be scheduled in a basic work day.

[00:15:29] Speaker 06:
E, the occurrence of holidays may not affect the designation of the basic

[00:15:34] Speaker 06:
worth a week, perfectly logical under those circumstances.

[00:15:43] Speaker 06:
So what I'm saying is you have to build all of these concepts together, 55, 46 in terms of pay for holidays, 6103 the in lieu holiday.

[00:16:01] Speaker 06:
And then when you look at the president's order,

[00:16:05] Speaker 06:
There's clear distinction between full-time employees and part-time.

[00:16:09] Speaker 06:
Section 3 clearly deals with all employees.

[00:16:13] Speaker 06:
An employee whose basic work week does not include Sunday.

[00:16:18] Speaker 06:
It's Section 3A.

[00:16:20] Speaker 06:
And B, any employee whose basic work week includes Sunday.

[00:16:25] Speaker 06:
Both sections using any, any employee.

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
We've exceeded your time, and I know you didn't reserve any total time, so let's listen to the government in May then.

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
You may please the court.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
A plain reading of federal pay statutes, many decades of administrative rulings, and OPM's own controlling regulations all plainly provide that only employees who work 40 hours or full-time employees are entitled to end rule of holidays.

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
The fact that part-time workers are deemed to be employees for purposes of Section 5546, which is the issue this court addressed in Fathower,

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
doesn't answer the question in this case of whether as part-time employees they're entitled to premium pay for working on days that would be deemed to be in lieu of holidays for other workers.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
That's the issue in this case.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
You use the word plainly.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
So I take it that your position is that there's absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in this statute that the term basic

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
40-hour work week is equal to basic work week, which equals full time.

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
And one simply would be nuts to read it any other way, or even to think it was ambiguous.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I think the best case scenario here for Mr. Yankel was that the statute is ambiguous, in which case you resort to a regulation.

[00:18:00] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
But my question, and really what I be candid with you when I read the statute, I thought it was at least ambiguous.

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
And so when you come in and say, well, that just plainly has to be read to mean basic work week equals 40 hours, then I'm immediately wondering what it is that you've got that's more than I saw.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I have two responses to that.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
The first is that it's correct that section 6103 itself, which lists the holidays and explains how integral of holidays work, that doesn't itself

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
define the term basic work week.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
But if you look at section 6101 as the court was earlier with Mr. Leshner, the only time that the phrase basic work week is given any contextual reference in 6101 is in the context of 40-hour work weeks.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
Well, you bet you could turn that around.

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
and say that when it mentions when it wants to refer to 40 hours as the basic work week, it specifically calls out 40-hour work week.

[00:19:08] Speaker 02:
It doesn't say work week, in effect, parentheses, which we all know means 40 hours.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
So if you look at 6101A3B, the basic 40-hour work week, if basic work week meant 40 hours,

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
it plainly, as you say, then it would seem to me that where it's 40 hours is unnecessary there.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
But they've put it in, which suggests to me maybe the term basic workweek doesn't carry with it the 40-hour suggestion.

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I think that that... Or at least it is plain that it does.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, I think that that particular subsection, A3B, is in fact very instructive because in the very same

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
phrase of that sentence, the drafters of the statute said the basic 40-hour work week is scheduled on five days, Monday through Friday, when possible.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
And the two days outside the basic work week are consecutive.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
So they connected basic work week right there with 40-hour work week.

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
And so you think that they were just being, this was just shorthand?

[00:20:19] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
And to the extent there was any doubt about that,

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
the Comptroller General on five different occasions being vetted?

[00:20:27] Speaker 02:
There's no doubt that you have a very compelling set of Chevron type arguments to be made here.

[00:20:36] Speaker 02:
The Comptroller General, you've got the OPM regulations, and the OPM regulations are quite explicit, and OPM's authorized to issue regulation of that effect.

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
What I'm concerned with, though, is the Chevron step one question.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
of whether this is an unambiguous statute or whether we have to resort to Chevron Step 2.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
And your position, I take it, is this is Chevron Step 1?

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
No questions about it.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
Well, I think, Your Honor, it's both Chevron Step 1 and Step 2 if the Court has to get there.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
But under Step 1, as I was saying, because the Comptroller General has interpreted Basic Workweek all the way back to 1953 as needing 40 hours

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
Congress then on nine different occasions between 1966 and 1998 amended section 6101 and section 6103 in different ways and on none of those occasions did Congress seek to further define basic work week or to explicitly undo the Comptroller General's... I've always found congressional acquiescence arguments to be uniquely weak.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
I mean, that suggests Congress is sitting down saying, you know,

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
I was reading the Comptroller General's opinion from 1953, and I think it's spot on, so let's not change the statute.

[00:21:59] Speaker 02:
It really is not a realistic assessment of the way Congress goes about its business normally, unless there's been some adverting to the problem and a decision, an expressed decision, either to change or not to change the statute.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
So I don't think you get much ammunition out of that.

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
Does the fact that 6101, the heading to it is basic 40-hour workweek, semicolon work schedule, semicolon regulations, does the fact that that phrase is used in the heading support the argument that any reference in this whole statute is actually talking about the basic 40-hour workweek?

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I think it is instructive.

[00:22:45] Speaker 00:
The trial court cited two different Supreme Court cases, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Revenue Decisions, both of which support the notion that as a statutory interpretation tool, while a section or chapter heading can't contradict the plain language of the text of the statute, if there's ambiguity in the text, the title of the statute or of the section

[00:23:11] Speaker 00:
can be instructive in providing guidance as to what the text means, if the text is ambiguous.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
So yes, that is further.

[00:23:17] Speaker 04:
But the counterpoint that your friend has, among others, I guess, is under three, it says, shall provide with respect to each employee in his organization.

[00:23:29] Speaker 04:
And that clearly suggests that we're not just talking about each full-time employee, that that would also include part-time employees.

[00:23:38] Speaker 04:
Is that not a fair reading of that phrase?

[00:23:40] Speaker 04:
And why doesn't that sort of at least raise some ambiguity with respect to this section in its entirety?

[00:23:48] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:23:49] Speaker 00:
It is correct that subsection A3 says that each agency with respect to each employee has to establish these different things that are then enumerated.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
But the fact that the agency has to establish things for each employee doesn't necessarily mean that every one of those things would apply to each employee.

[00:24:09] Speaker 00:
As the Court noted,

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
Some of them explicitly reference 40-hour work weeks, and so, finally, those wouldn't apply to part-time employees.

[00:24:18] Speaker 02:
Only B, right?

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
B is the only one.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
Yes, B. Other provisions would, on their face, cover both part-time and full-time employees, like the basic non-overtime workday may not exceed eight hours.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
The fact that the agency has to establish things for each employee doesn't mean that every one of those things would even apply to every employee.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
The point is for each employee who works a basic work week, the agency has to do these things.

[00:24:47] Speaker 00:
And for other employees, where the term basic work week isn't included, part-time employees presumably would be included or encompassed within the scope of that.

[00:24:57] Speaker 02:
Do you happen to know if OPM, as a matter of policy government-wide,

[00:25:04] Speaker 02:
directs agencies to establish a basic work week for part-time employees?

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
No, I don't believe they do establish a basic work week for part-time employees because OPM's interpretation of the statute as regulations is that part-time employees don't work at basic work.

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
Well, I understand, but I'm just wondering whether if I'm a part-time employee and I say, you know, I'd like to work from 9 to 12 every day, five days a week, if I got a right to equivalent rights, put it that way, to what a full-time employee would have under the statute to have a basic work week.

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
defines other terms in its regulations, like regularly scheduled administrative work week, which explicitly on its face, there's language that applies to both part-time and full-time.

[00:26:00] Speaker 00:
I see.

[00:26:00] Speaker 02:
So they use different terminology when they're referring to the part-timers get their rights under the administrative work week regulation?

[00:26:11] Speaker 00:
Yes, sir, honor.

[00:26:13] Speaker 00:
And so that

[00:26:16] Speaker 00:
shows that OPM had the ability, and that is in 5 CFR, section 550.103.

[00:26:24] Speaker 00:
They define the term regularly as Scheduled Administrative Workweek.

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
The language for both full-time employees and part-time employees.

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
And that, you say, supports your view that Basic Workweek is a term of art that only applies to the 40-hour workers.

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
Correct, Your Honor, because in the regulations, as in the statute, the only way that Basic Workweek is defined is by reference to 40 hours.

[00:26:44] Speaker 00:
And the fact that OPM demonstrated through defining other terms that it understood the need to distinguish between part-time and full-time when regulation applied to both shows that basic work only applies to full-time employees.

[00:27:00] Speaker 00:
And so to the extent the court had to get beyond Chevron step one and got to the second step, you have numerous different regulations here that were enacted by OPM.

[00:27:10] Speaker 00:
It was empowered by Congress to do so, all of which

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
link basic workweek solely to full-time, 40-hour employment.

[00:27:19] Speaker 02:
One thing I wanted to ask you to tease out for me is something that was in one of the Comptroller General opinions, but you alluded to it in your brief.

[00:27:28] Speaker 02:
And that is the situation in which an employee may be only working, a part-time employee may be only working two days a week, and then ends up with a disproportionate number of in-lieu holidays.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
I generally understood the point you were making, but could you maybe flesh that out with an example to make it clear?

[00:27:55] Speaker 02:
Let me ask it this way.

[00:27:56] Speaker 02:
Would that apply with even more force to someone that worked one day a week?

[00:28:01] Speaker 02:
Or would it be a minimum of two in order for that example?

[00:28:05] Speaker 02:
The point of the example, as you recall, of course, is that it was

[00:28:10] Speaker 02:
an anomaly that the Comptroller General said Congress couldn't have intended this because this would be the result.

[00:28:17] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:28:17] Speaker 00:
Well, yes, and the example in the Comptroller General's decision was someone who works Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

[00:28:22] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:28:23] Speaker 00:
And under Section 6103, if a federal holiday falls on a Saturday, an employee with a basic work week gets the prior day off under the accompanying executive order.

[00:28:34] Speaker 00:
If the holiday falls on a Sunday,

[00:28:36] Speaker 00:
a basic working employee gets the next work day off.

[00:28:39] Speaker 00:
And so the example was that somebody who works Tuesday and Wednesday, if the holiday falls on a Saturday, they would get, I guess, the prior Wednesday off.

[00:28:49] Speaker 00:
If it falls on a Sunday, they'd get the next Tuesday off.

[00:28:53] Speaker 00:
And so what you'd have is a situation where the less number of days a part-time employee works, the greater proportion of time they would get off as an end of holiday compared to

[00:29:03] Speaker 00:
a full-time employee.

[00:29:05] Speaker 02:
And I think the other point there is that... The proportion being the proportion of holidays versus the number of total days that the employee works in the course of the year.

[00:29:13] Speaker 00:
Yes, correct.

[00:29:14] Speaker 00:
And also the point of the in lieu of holidays, the in lieu of holidays recognized on the day before or the day after the holiday.

[00:29:24] Speaker 00:
And if you have someone who's only working a couple of days a week, under Mr. Yankov's interpretation, the in lieu of holiday would be recognized for that employee

[00:29:32] Speaker 00:
potentially three or four days removed from the actual holiday, which again doesn't really make sense in terms of what the purpose was behind the rule of holidays, and I think demonstrates why, as a policy matter, it made sense for Congress and then certainly OPM and the regulations to limit the rule of holidays to full-time employees.

[00:29:51] Speaker 02:
And for the second part of my question, does that apply with even more force to someone that works one day a week, if there is any such person?

[00:30:00] Speaker 02:
Or is there something...

[00:30:01] Speaker 02:
Where I got confused and what I wasn't able to work out by myself is whether there's something about the day before, day after holidays that makes two days of working somehow the situation in which the anomaly is most pertinent.

[00:30:23] Speaker 02:
Would it apply twice as much in a one day situation?

[00:30:27] Speaker 00:
Yes, if you had a part-time worker who was working one day a week, then they would get their entire week off any time there was a holiday, any time in the week.

[00:30:36] Speaker 00:
That would be their result.

[00:30:38] Speaker 00:
The in lieu of holiday would be recognized on their one day, regardless of what day of the week the holiday actually fell on.

[00:30:43] Speaker 00:
So that would be presumably even more bizarre than the result of someone working Tuesday and Wednesday.

[00:30:52] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:30:52] Speaker 00:
We would ask that the court affirm the trial course.

[00:30:56] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:30:57] Speaker 04:
We thank both sides in the cases submitted.

[00:30:59] Speaker 04:
That concludes our proceedings for this morning.