Eldridge v. Department of Agriculture

Decision Date25 November 1992
Docket NumberNo. 92-3360,92-3360
Citation983 F.2d 1088
PartiesNOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order. Wilbur J. ELDRIDGE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Before PLAGER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, and CURTIN, Senior District Judge. *

PER CURIAM.

Wilbur J. Eldridge appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board sustaining his removal from the Agriculture Marketing Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, where he was employed as a livestock market news reporter. Eldridge v. Department of Agriculture, No. CH 0752-92-0011-I-1 (January 31, 1992). We affirm the decision of the Board.

A.

Mr. Eldridge's removal from the agency was based on two charges:

1. Entering into an improper loan transaction with a member of the livestock trade and/or related conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and

2. Making false and/or misleading statements to an official supervisor.

The first charge was based on a transaction between Mr. Eldridge and James F. Merritt. Mr. Merritt was a Manager for the Central Livestock Association, a computerized livestock trading system which depends on the Agriculture Marketing Service for accurate reports on prices of livestock and other agricultural commodities. In May of 1990, Mr. Eldridge asked Mr. Merritt to give him a check for $800.00 in exchange for Mr. Eldridge's check, which Mr. Merritt was not to attempt to negotiate until the following week, by which time Mr. Eldridge was to have deposited funds to cover the check. Mr. Merritt agreed. However, when Mr. Merritt subsequently sought to deposit the check, Mr. Eldridge's bank refused to honor it. In fact, Mr. Eldridge had stopped payment on the check on May 22, 1990, and had shortly thereafter closed the account on which it was drawn. In August of 1990, after his attempts to contact Mr. Eldridge were unsuccessful, Mr. Merritt went to Mr. Eldridge's supervisor at the Agriculture Marketing Service and told him about his transaction with Mr. Eldridge. The supervisor ordered Mr. Eldridge to repay the $800.00 to Mr. Merritt by the close of business on August 3, 1990, which Mr. Eldridge did. Later, Mr. Eldridge paid Mr. Merritt interest and overdraft charges.

Several witnesses testified that to perform effectively, a livestock market news reporter must have the confidence of persons in the livestock trade, and that therefore personal financial transactions with professional acquaintances such as Mr. Merritt are improper. In this regard, the agency provided Mr. Eldridge with a copy of Agency Directive 365.2, "Conflicts of Interest and Outside Employment," which explained this policy, and Mr. Eldridge signed a certification that he had read the directive. Testimony also revealed that Mr. Eldridge's supervisors were concerned that public knowledge of his financial problems might lead unscrupulous people to attempt to bribe him to influence his reports.

The second charge, making false or misleading statements, was based on two separate incidents. First, between the time that Mr. Eldridge entered into the check exchange transaction and the time that Mr. Merritt discovered that the check had not been honored, Mr. Eldridge's supervisors specifically asked him to advise them of any legal or financial situation involving him that might reflect badly on the Marketing News Service. In response, Mr. Eldridge assured his supervisors that he "had everything well in hand and there would not be additional problems." The agency charged that when Mr. Eldridge made these statements, he knew or should have known that the check he had given to Mr. Merritt would be dishonored. Second, Mr. Eldridge, in asking for time off to appear in court, told his supervisor several different times that he was going there to "take care of a ticket." In fact, Mr. Eldridge had been charged with a felony, Grand Theft Auto. Mr. Eldridge offered no testimony or other evidence to rebut the charge of false or misleading statements.

The Board found that Mr. Eldridge's financial misconduct had a "direct and predictable impact on the level of perceived...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT