Campbell v. Deviny

• Decision Date: 07 January 1949
• Docket Number: No. 684-48.,684-48.
• Citation: 81 F. Supp. 657
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. DEVINY et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

81 F. Supp. 657

CAMPBELL v. DEVINY et al.

No. 684-48.

United States District Court District of Columbia, Civil Division.

January 7, 1949.

Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Edward H. Hickey, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and E. Leo Backus, Atty. Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., for defendants.

John C. Williamson, of Washington, D. C., Counsel, Veterans of Foreign Wars of U. S. amicus curiae.

LETTS, District Judge.

Plaintiff, an employee of the Government Printing Office, brings suit to require the Public Printer to place him in the supervisory position of Principal Technical Assistant in the Government Printing Office. The claim is founded upon Section 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 885, 890, 56 Stat. 724, 58 Stat. 798, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 301 et seq., as implemented by civil service regulations (Federal Personnel Manual, R6-16).

He contends that the position held by him at the time of his entry into the military service, "Estimator-Jacket Preparer" (Grade CAF-7) had been reallocated during his absence without substantial change in duties and responsibility to Grade CAF-11, and its title changed to that of Principal Technical Assistant and, accordingly, pursuant to the mentioned statute, he was entitled to all the benefits of the reallocation.

The employing agency, the Government Printing Office, determined that there had been no reallocation, and that the position of Principal Technical Assistant, an important supervisory post in the Government Printing Office, is in no manner comparable to the position held by plaintiff, which was a non-supervisory one. The Civil Service Commission to whom the matter was appealed, after lengthy hearings, affirmed the action of the Government Printing Office, finding that the positions were not comparable.

Section 8 of the Act provides in part:

"(b) In the case of any such person who, in order to perform such training and service, has left * * * a position, other than a temporary position, in the employ of any employer * * *

"(A) if such position was in the employ of the United States Government, its Territories or possessions * * * such person shall be restored to such position or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay;

"(B) if such position was in the employ of a private employer, such employer shall restore such person to such position or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay unless the employer's circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so;

* * * * * * * *

"(e) In case any private employer fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of subsection (b) * * * the district court of the United States * * * shall have power * * * to specifically require such employer to comply * * *."

Civil Service Regulations (Federal Personnel Manual, R6-16), published March 1946 provide:

Effect of reallocation during veteran's absence—"If the position held formerly by a returning veteran has been reallocated to a higher level without substantial change in duties and responsibilities, the veteran is entitled to all benefits of the reallocation."

The controversy involves the internal administration of a Federal Agency and is one which the courts for more than one hundred years have firmly and consistently refused to entertain. As a matter of public policy the courts will not assume to control the actions of executive officers in the exercise of their judgment and discretion in the complex field of personnel management. To do so would be to usurp the function and prerogative placed by law in the executive. Many intricate and technical factors enter into the process of job classification. To define the duties of positions, the scope of authority and measure of responsibility attached to positions requires the knowledge, judgment and discretion of the employing agency which created the post and is charged with superintendence. Few principles of law are more definitely established than that in which the courts express forbearance in matters involving the internal administration of the executive branch. Interference by the courts in such matters would be productive of nothing but mischief. Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497, 39 U.S. 497, 10 L.Ed. 559; Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108; Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290, 20 S.Ct. 574, 575, 44 L.Ed. 774. The courts have announced adherence to this principle in many decided cases.

In Keim v. United States, supra, the court said "* * * The appointing power must determine the fitness of the applicant; whether or not he is the proper one to discharge the duties of the position. Therefore it is one of those acts over which the courts have no general supervising power. * * *" See also Levine v. Farley, 70 App.D.C. 381, 107 F.2d 186; United States ex rel. Taylor v. Taft, 24 App.D.C. 95; Golding...