Masino v. United States, 270-77.
Citation | 589 F.2d 1048 |
Decision Date | 13 December 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 270-77.,270-77. |
Parties | Thomas J. MASINO v. The UNITED STATES. |
Court | Court of Federal Claims |
John I. Heise, Jr., Silver Spring, Md., atty. of record for plaintiff. Robert A. Hahn, Silver Spring, Md., and Sam Resnicoff, New York City, of counsel.
Emory J. Bailey, Wheaton, Md., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. Barbara Allen Babcock, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
Before FRIEDMAN, Chief Judge, and KUNZIG and BENNETT, Judges.
ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This civilian personnel action comes to us on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, and plaintiff's motion, in the alternative, to remand to our Trial Division for further ascertainment of facts. We are faced with the difficult problem of whether a customs inspector (plaintiff, Masino) was properly terminated on the basis of his personal use and transportation of marijuana, when the duties of his position require him to enforce federal laws against the illegal importation of marijuana. Plaintiff also raises certain alleged procedural irregularities.
Masino sues in this court for reinstatement and back pay claiming wrongful removal from his position with the U.S. Customs Service. With some reluctance, and agreeing that the issue is close, we find no material procedural flaw, and hold that the Civil Service Commission in sustaining plaintiff's removal for cause was neither arbitrary, capricious nor unsupported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff joined the U.S. Customs Service as a Customs Control Officer in August 1972 and served satisfactorily in New York with the usual promotions until July 1974 when he was promoted to Customs Inspector and assigned to Nogales, Arizona. In March 1975, while in Nogales, plaintiff was advanced to Customs Inspector, GS-9.
On May 20, 1975, plaintiff was interviewed by agents of the Customs Bureau of Internal Affairs. Plaintiff was first admonished according to paragraph (j) of section 27.39 of the Customs Manual as follows:
After plaintiff replied, "Yes, it is," he was placed under oath and testified in general as to the following.
Plaintiff has used marijuana. He used it in the service in 1969, quite a few times when he was in the Navy, and occasionally thereafter. He testified that he used it once or twice a month. Since he had come to Nogales, he had used marijuana about four or five times. He testified he smoked with Customs Inspector Jose Edwards at his house, once probably alone, and once or twice with his wife. He also offered Inspector Edwards a marijuana cigarette. Masino said the marijuana he used and offered to Inspector Edwards he had brought with him from New York. He brought about a half an ounce of marijuana.
The May 20, 1975 interview was recorded on tape and transcribed on or about July 14, 1975.1 On that date, plaintiff was given the opportunity to read and make changes in the transcription. Plaintiff crossed out the response to the question "Approximately what quantity of marijuana did you bring from New York," namely "a half ounce" and wrote in "one quarter (¼) ounce." Plaintiff initialed the change "T.J.M."
On September 25, 1975, plaintiff was issued a notice of a proposal to remove him for cause from the U.S. Customs Service. He was charged with four specifications involving violation of Treasury Personnel Manual, Section 0.735-54 Falsification of Official Records2 (Charge I, no longer at issue before this court), and charged with four specifications involving violation of Treasury Personnel Manual Section 0.735-56 General Conduct Prejudicial to the Government3 (Charge II) of which three specifications4 now remain at issue before this court.
The next step in the sequence of factual events came on November 11, 1975, when plaintiff and his representative made an oral reply to the proposed adverse action. Masino's representative argued that he had been denied due process at the time of the May 20, 1975 interview for the reason that Masino was told that failure to answer questions would result in his being subject to disciplinary action. Most importantly, at that oral reply, plaintiff did not deny his May 20, 1975 statements and did not deny the authenticity of the transcription of those statements signed by plaintiff on July 14, 1975.
On February 6, 1976, plaintiff's representative was given the summary of the November 11, 1975 oral reply and on February 18, 1976, that representative was asked to make comments thereon. Defendant alleges that plaintiff's representative did not thereafter object or otherwise comment on this summary of the November 11, 1975 oral reply.
The Regional Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service, on March 4, 1976, sustained all charges and specifications and found that they warranted the removal of plaintiff to promote the efficiency of the service effective March 19, 1976. Plaintiff was notified of his appeal rights and was removed from the service on that date.
On March 26, 1976, plaintiff appealed the removal action to the Civil Service Commission and on July 27, 1976, a hearing was held. At the hearing, plaintiff basically affirmed his use of marijuana as a Customs Inspector, recanted part of his May 20, 1975 statement (mainly with regard to the frequency of his marijuana use and to his having brought marijuana from New York to Nogales).
At the hearing Masino testified he had used marijuana "on very infrequent occasions, maybe a couple of times" while employed as a Customs Patrol Officer. On May 20, he had admitted he used marijuana "at least once or twice a month" during the same time period. Plaintiff further testified before the CSC that he had used marijuana "once or twice" in Arizona, while on May 20, he had admitted using marijuana "four or five times." Masino confirmed the fact that he had offered his own cigarettes (marijuana) to Mr. Edwards. He further testified that he had only smoked with Mr. Edwards once and once alone, while on May 20, he had stated he had smoked also with his wife. With regard to the transportation of marijuana from New York to Arizona, Masino testified that he had packed his household goods for moving and "didn't have any idea that it was coming down here Arizona."
On October 1, 1976, the appeals authority found Specifications II, III and IV of Charge II (i. e., three specifications) were supported by a preponderance of credible evidence, were procedurally valid, that the removal was not arbitrary and capricious or unreasonable under the circumstances, and that there existed sufficient nexus between the admitted off duty conduct and the promotion of the efficiency of the service through the removal.
The major findings of the appeals authority with regard to the three specifications were:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Termination of an Assistant United States Attorney on Grounds Related to His Acknowledged Homosexuality, 83-7
...the efficiency of the service" cannot be said to be without a rational basis. His discharge was neither arbitrary nor capricious. 589 F.2d at 1056. A district court has upheld a state barring all felons, even those who had received pardons, from being policemen. Dixon v. McMullen, 527 F.Sup......
-
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 86-1879
...this pervasive social problem, as is amply illustrated by our decision in Railway Labor Executives. See also Masino v. United States, 589 F.2d 1048, 1050, 218 Ct.Cl. 531 (1978) (describing marijuana use by two Customs inspectors). Detecting drug impairment on the part of employees can be a ......
-
CWT Farms, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 16365-80
......16365-80 16367-80. United States Tax Court Filed December 23, 1982. . In CWT ......
-
Bonet v. U.S. Postal Service, 80-1502
...Cir. 1980); Henkle v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 811 (10th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. United States, 628 F.2d 187 (D.C.Cir.1980); Masino v. United States, 589 F.2d 1048 (Ct.Cl.1978).At least one circuit had rejected the substantial evidence element of the pre-Act majority review standard. See Young v. ......