Eggers v. United States, Civ. A. No. 78-HC-1200.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1981
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 78-HC-1200.
• Citation: 516 F. Supp. 1168
• Parties: Harold H. EGGERS, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, and William A. Hankins, individually, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

516 F. Supp. 1168

Harold H. EGGERS, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, and William A. Hankins, individually, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 78-HC-1200.

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

June 22, 1981.

Guy M. Heyl, Heyl, Bostrom & Musyl, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.

Joseph Dolan, U. S. Atty., by Roland J. Brumbaugh, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for defendant, U. S.

Allan H. Horowitz, Aurora, Colo., for defendant, F.A.A.

CHILSON, Senior District Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

This is an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, in the nature of mandamus to compel the Federal Aviation Administration, an agency of the United States, to reinstate the plaintiff to the position of Sector Manager at the Longmont facility of the Federal Aviation Administration from which he was removed in June 1975. The trial was had to the Court.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Prior to June 1975, plaintiff was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a Sector Manager at the FAA facility in Longmont, Colorado.

In June 1975, plaintiff's superior, William A. Hankins, demoted the plaintiff in grade and assigned him to Aurora, Colorado, as Assistant Sector Manager.

Plaintiff appealed this action to the Federal Employees Appeals Authority (Authority) which ordered the demotion and reassignment cancelled. In March 1976, the Appeals Review Board of the United States Civil Service Commission affirmed the decision of the Authority.

The 1975 demotion and assignment were cancelled in March 1976, whereupon Hankins, instead of reinstating plaintiff to his former position as Sector Manager at Longmont, reassigned plaintiff to Aurora as Special Assistant to the Chief of Operations and shortly thereafter reassigned plaintiff to Great Falls, Montana, as a Sector Manager.

Plaintiff protested these last two assignments, insisting that by virtue of the cancellation of the 1975 assignment, he was entitled to reinstatement to his former position as Sector Manager at Longmont.

In opposition to plaintiff's contention, the defendants state at page 11 of its brief in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment:

"Paragraph 301 of the FAA Handbook 3330.9, Internal Placement, prescribes the policy and procedure regarding administrative reassignment and relocation. The FAA may administratively reassign and relocate any employee without loss in grade or salary from one position, organization, or geographic location to another, when such action has been demonstrated to be in the best interests of the Agency. In reaching such a determination, the agency must assure that administrative reassignment and relocation are not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and that the decision is based on sound management considerations."

The issues in this case are whether or not the reassignments of plaintiff in 1976 to Aurora and later to Great Falls, Montana, were "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable", and whether or not the decisions for such reassignments were "based on sound management considerations."

FINDINGS OF FACT

After approximately fifteen years of employment by the FAA at various locations, the plaintiff in 1970 was assigned the position of Sector Manager at the Longmont facility.

His supervisor, since September 1971, was William A. Hankins, Chief Airway Facilities Division, located in Denver.

At the trial, Hankins, who retired in 1978, was called as a witness by defendants. From his testimony, the Court finds that shortly after he became Chief in September 1971, he was not pleased with plaintiff's performance as Sector Manager; he considered plaintiff's performance as marginal; he was displeased with plaintiff's off duty activities, including the buying and selling of used cars and that in general, he was not happy with the plaintiff as a Sector Manager.

Nevertheless, no steps or actions were taken by Hankins to reassign plaintiff or otherwise replace him until June 1975.

On June 27, 1975, Hankins demoted plaintiff from his then present grade of 15 to Grade 14 and reassigned him to the position of Assistant Sector Manager in the "Denver Hub" located in Aurora, citing two reasons for this action. (Exhibit 1)

The first reason: "Mismanagement of personnel and failure to take effective timely corrective action."

More specifically, Hankins charged that one Farthing, Assistant Sector Manager and his secretary, were having an extramarital affair and that this was well known to the personnel in Longmont. Hankins charged that this resulted in preferential treatment by Farthing to his secretary; caused an adverse impact upon the operation of the Sector, and that plaintiff took no effective action to correct the problem.

Second reason: "Mismanagement of fiscal resources."

More specifically, Hankins charged that plaintiff improperly approved per diem expenses for four employees who attended a meeting at Cheyenne, Wyoming, in April, 1974 (See Exhibit 1).

Plaintiff appealed the demotion and reassignment to the Federal Employee Appeals Authority (Authority).

After holding hearings, the Authority in its decision, rendered December 19, 1975, made detailed findings of fact, and concluded that the evidence did not support either of the two charges and ordered:

"The Federal Aviation Administration, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado, is hereby directed to cancel the Standard Form 50, Modification of Personnel Action, which effected the

...