Auer v Robbins
Okay kiddo, so there are these two people named Auer and Robbins. They were arguing about something and had to go to a place called a court to have a judge decide who was right.
The judge had to make a decision about how to interpret some rules that had to do with a job. Auer said that one rule meant something and Robbins said it meant something else.
The judge looked at the rule and decided that Auer was right. But then something interesting happened. Auer actually worked for the people who made the rule, so some other people got upset and said the judge shouldn't have listened to Auer because he might have been biased since he worked for the people who made the rule.
But the judge said that even though Auer worked for the people who made the rule, the judge still thought Auer was right about what the rule meant. This made some people happy and some people unhappy, but that's basically what happened in the Auer v Robbins case.
The judge had to make a decision about how to interpret some rules that had to do with a job. Auer said that one rule meant something and Robbins said it meant something else.
The judge looked at the rule and decided that Auer was right. But then something interesting happened. Auer actually worked for the people who made the rule, so some other people got upset and said the judge shouldn't have listened to Auer because he might have been biased since he worked for the people who made the rule.
But the judge said that even though Auer worked for the people who made the rule, the judge still thought Auer was right about what the rule meant. This made some people happy and some people unhappy, but that's basically what happened in the Auer v Robbins case.