# Preston v. Heckler

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 7, 1984 · 734 F.2d 1359

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8921444

## Case

- **Full name:** Lillian N. PRESTON, for herself and all others similarly situated v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendants-Appellants Lillian N. PRESTON v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants-Appellants Lillian PRESTON, for herself and all others similarly situated v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 7, 1984
- **Citations:** 734 F.2d 1359; 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 34,433
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sneed
- **Judges:** Nelson, Reinhardt, Sneed
- **Cited by:** 58 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8921444

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that plaintiff employed as a GS-04 medical records technician who applied for a GS-11/12 social worker position, see Preston v. Schweiker, 555 F.Supp. 886, 888 (D. Alaska 1983), had standing to challenge the DOI's failure to apply Indian preference
- finding that the Secretary applied the general civil service standards to Native Americans without any consideration whatsoever of their unique background and experience
- recognizing that the personal injury requirement is satisfied “when challenged agency conduct allegedly renders a person unable to fairly compete for some benefit”
- holding that Office of Law Revision Counsel erred in omitting as obsolete phrase "without regard to civil-service laws" from codification of Indian Preference Act
- rejecting argument that "the Act only requires that Indians be given preference in hiring when they are equally or more qualified than non- Indian applicants"

## Opinion text

SNEED, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Reinhardt’s opinion. I write only to state that it is my understanding that the Secretary is not required under the Indian Preference Act to employ Indians not qualified to perform the duties the position in question entails. The nature of those duties, however, must be fixed in conformity with the true needs of the Indian Health Service, not those of an ideal health service that happens to serve Indians.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8921444. Public record. Not legal advice.