Bowen v. Department of Transp., F.A.A., Nos. 83-799

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH and SMITH; PER CURIAM
Parties120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2717 Gary BOWEN, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Joseph JANIEL, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Mindy SALTZMAN, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Ronald T. PRWIVO, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Gary R. PARIS, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Francis J. MILLER, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Stuart FORBES, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Dennis DADARRIA, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Gary A. DAWSON, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. to 83-806 and 83-1176.
Decision Date31 July 1985
Docket NumberNos. 83-799

Page 753

769 F.2d 753
120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2717
Gary BOWEN, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Joseph JANIEL, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Mindy SALTZMAN, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Ronald T. PRWIVO, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Gary R. PARIS, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Francis J. MILLER, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Stuart FORBES, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Dennis DADARRIA, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Gary A. DAWSON, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Nos. 83-799 to 83-806 and 83-1176.
United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.
July 31, 1985.

Page 754

Alan E. Wolin, Wolin & Wolin, Hicksville, N.Y., for petitioners.

J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Sandra Spooner, Asst. Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Because the basis asserted for each of the nine captioned petitions is a single, identical issue of law, the court has, sua sponte, consolidated them. The decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), No. NY075281F0424, sustaining petitioners' removal for participation in an illegal strike against the United States Government and unauthorized absence, are affirmed and sanctions are imposed under Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P.

Counsel on appeal, Alan E. Wolin (Wolin) filed virtually identical briefs in the nine petitions for review. Each brief presents the same issues, i.e., whether petitioners' counsel before the board, Jack Solerwitz, fulfilled what Wolin calls "his obligation to prepare a defense and to offer the individual circumstances of each case." Thus, Wolin says, petitioners have been "denied effective assistance of counsel" and the opportunity to develop a full record. 1

To the Government's contention that the present petitions are frivolous, Wolin responds that his argument addresses no issue decided by this Court in the "lead cases." Because that assertion is irrelevant, and the argument is totally without support, we hold frivolous the filing and maintenance of these petitions. See Griessenauer v. Department of Energy, 754 F.2d 361 (Fed.Cir.1985); Moir v. Department of the Treasury, 753 F.2d 341 (Fed.

Page 755

Cir.1985); Asberry v. United States Postal Service, 692 F.2d 1378 (Fed.Cir.1982). 2

The statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7513(b)(3) (1985), provides that an employee facing an adverse action is entitled to "be represented by an attorney or other representative." There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that representation be "effective". On the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that a petitioner who has voluntarily selected an attorney to represent him in a civil action, "cannot ... avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent." See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1390-91, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (19...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • LaForte v. Horner, No. 87-1138
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 17 Noviembre 1987
    ...customary and regular pay). 6 In the official Reporter, this was incorrectly described as "an additional one-hour regular rate salary." 769 F.2d at 753. 7 Actually, the same argument appears to undermine the government's position in this appeal as well. Since the regular rate calculated for......
  • Martin v. David T. Saunders Const. Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 91-12472-K.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • 13 Octubre 1992
    ...577 F.2d at 447. Moreover, the Zumerling court rejected a proposal similar to plaintiff's as creating a windfall to plaintiff-firemen. 769 F.2d at 753. The First Circuit has also distinguished federal labor law, requiring division of total pay by the actual hours worked, from Puerto Rican l......
  • Pitts v. Shinseki, No. 2011–7182.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 20 Noviembre 2012
    ...of counsel in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board in Bowen v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 769 F.2d 753, 755 (Fed.Cir.1985). The appellants in that case, federal employees who had been removed from their jobs, argued that their counsel had bee......
  • Des Vignes v. Department of Transp., F.A.A., No. 85-1111
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 2 Mayo 1986
    ...appeals rising out of the same strike and the Presidential action in response thereto. See Bowen v. Department of Transportation, FAA, 769 F.2d 753, 756 & n. 4 (Fed.Cir.1985). Counsel's attention was called by this court to those earlier cases, though counsel is accountable for knowledge of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • LaForte v. Horner, No. 87-1138
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 17 Noviembre 1987
    ...customary and regular pay). 6 In the official Reporter, this was incorrectly described as "an additional one-hour regular rate salary." 769 F.2d at 753. 7 Actually, the same argument appears to undermine the government's position in this appeal as well. Since the regular rate calculated for......
  • Martin v. David T. Saunders Const. Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 91-12472-K.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • 13 Octubre 1992
    ...577 F.2d at 447. Moreover, the Zumerling court rejected a proposal similar to plaintiff's as creating a windfall to plaintiff-firemen. 769 F.2d at 753. The First Circuit has also distinguished federal labor law, requiring division of total pay by the actual hours worked, from Puerto Rican l......
  • Pitts v. Shinseki, No. 2011–7182.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 20 Noviembre 2012
    ...of counsel in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board in Bowen v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 769 F.2d 753, 755 (Fed.Cir.1985). The appellants in that case, federal employees who had been removed from their jobs, argued that their counsel had bee......
  • Des Vignes v. Department of Transp., F.A.A., No. 85-1111
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 2 Mayo 1986
    ...appeals rising out of the same strike and the Presidential action in response thereto. See Bowen v. Department of Transportation, FAA, 769 F.2d 753, 756 & n. 4 (Fed.Cir.1985). Counsel's attention was called by this court to those earlier cases, though counsel is accountable for knowledge of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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