763 F.2d 392 (10th Cir. 1985), 84-1252, Weatherford v. Dole
|Citation:||763 F.2d 392|
|Party Name:||Harry L. WEATHERFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elizabeth DOLE, Secretary of Transportation, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 06, 1985|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
Billy J. Hendrix, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Peter R. Maier, Appellate Staff, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen.; Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Appellate Staff, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and William S. Price, U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, with him on the brief) for defendant-appellee.
Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, and McWILLIAMS and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.
McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.
Harry L. Weatherford was employed in a GS-14 position as a Deputy Chief of the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Radar Approach Control/Air Traffic Control Tower. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted a special evaluation of the Oklahoma City Tower. After a week-long evaluation, the FAA found safety problems throughout the operations of the Oklahoma City Tower, and, as a result thereof, various personnel in the Tower were reassigned, including Weatherford. Specifically, the FAA advised Weatherford that it proposed to reassign him to its Dallas-Fort Worth Control Tower in another GS-14 position, to the end that his reassignment would be without reduction in grade or pay.
Weatherford first objected to the proposed transfer in an FAA administrative grievance proceeding in which the examiner found that the reassignment was not arbitrary or capricious. During the course of this administrative proceeding, Weatherford separately requested to be transferred to a GS-13 position in Tulsa for "personal reasons and not at the request of the Agency." Such request was granted in April, 1980, and the proposed reassignment to Dallas-Fort Worth never occurred.
In October, 1981, Weatherford filed the instant proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, seeking reinstatement to the position of Deputy Chief at the Oklahoma City Tower and damages in the sum of $12,000. Jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, and 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702 [*]. Weatherford asserted claims that he had been deprived of both liberty and property interests in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP