amended answer with the court. See Defs.’ Proposed Answer. They have also stated with particularity the grounds on which their motion rests. See Defs.’ Mot. at 1 (setting forth the grounds for the defendants’ motion as an "intervening decision ... support[ing] the inclusion of additional affirmative defenses”). 5 . The plaintiff makes an additional argument that the court rejects out of hand: he asserts that the FAA, not the DOT, is the proper named defendant. The plaintiff previously advanced this argument in the MSPB matter. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 7-9. The Federal Circuit adjudicated this issue in the plaintiff's appeal, and the reasoning of the Federal Circuit applies with equal force in the instant action. See Morgan v. Dep’t of Transp., 300 Fed.Appx. 923, 928 n. 1 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). As a result, the court will not address the
holding that lay testimony is competent if it is limited to matters that the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of the witnesss personal knowledge holding that regardless of the faas independence over employment matters it is still a subordinate administration within the dot holding that in the employment context only transportation workers employment contracts are exempted from the faas coverage holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury holding the principals grant of authority to speak is not the main concern in applying the partyadmission exception to the hearsay rule instead the test is whether the statement concerns matters within the scope of the employment