Eustace v. Day, No. 16780.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation114 US App. DC 242,314 F.2d 247
PartiesConrad C. EUSTACE, Appellant, v. J. Edward DAY, Postmaster General et al., Appellees.
Decision Date20 December 1962
Docket NumberNo. 16780.

114 US App. DC 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962)

Conrad C. EUSTACE, Appellant,
v.
J. Edward DAY, Postmaster General et al., Appellees.

No. 16780.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued November 8, 1962.

Decided December 20, 1962.


Mr. Sidney Dickstein, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. David I. Shapiro, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Barry Sidman, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellees. Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Mrs. Ellen Lee Park, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Nathan J. Paulson and Abbott A. Leban, Asst. U. S. Attys., at the time the brief was filed, were on the brief for appellees. Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellees.

Before FAHY, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order of the District Court granting summary judgment and denying the relief sought. Appellant is a discharged Government employee entitled to the benefits of the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 851-869 (1958). He sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate his discharge, and an order for reinstatement to the postal service.

In our view, the record in this case shows that the conclusion of the Post Office Department and the Civil Service Commission, holding that the conduct of appellant was such as to bring the Department into disrepute and was unbecoming a postal employee, was not arbitrary, capricious, or unwarranted. We agree with the District Judge that "if there is a rational basis for the conclusions reached by the administrative agency and if all requirements of law are complied with, the Court may not step in and substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency," and that there was such basis here. See Ellis v. Mueller, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 280 F.2d 722, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 883, 81 S.Ct. 172, 5 L.Ed.2d 104 (1960); Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App. D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29, cert. denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957); see also Carter v. Forrestal, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 175 F.2d 364, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 832, 70 S.Ct. 47, 94 L.

314 F.2d 248
Ed. 507 (1949); Levine v. Farley, 70 denied, 308 U.S. 622, 60 S.Ct. 377, 84 L. Ed. 519 (1940)

Affirmed.

FAHY, Circuit Judge (concurring in the result).

I concur in the result but do so only after considering appellant's claim of protected union activity under rights said to stem from Section 6(c) of the Lloyd-LaFollette Act of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Polcover v. Secretary of Treasury, No. 71-1920.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 4, 1973
    ...1060, 477 F.2d 1226 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957), to finally the more current "rational basis test," see Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962). Regardless of whether the test of today is framed in the language of determining whether the Commission acted in an arbitrary or capri......
  • Lodge 1858, American Federation of Gov. Emp. v. Paine, No. 22006.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 21, 1970
    ...Court. 105 See Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82, 84, 42 S.Ct. 12, 66 L.Ed. 140 (1921); Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App. D.C. 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962); Powell v. Brannan, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 18, 196 F.2d 871, 873 106 This would, of course, permit a disposition on motion for summary judgmen......
  • Doe v. Hampton, No. 76-1090
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 3, 1977
    ...86 S.Ct. 588, 15 L.Ed.2d 486 (1966); McTiernan v. Gronouski, 337 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 1964); Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 242, 314 F.2d 247, 247 (1962) (per curiam); Jenkyns v. Bd. of Education, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 64, 65, 294 F.2d 260, 261 (1961) (per curiam). See also Seebach v. Cul......
  • Charlton v. United States, No. 16670.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 2, 1969
    ...by the Civil Service Commission. Studemeyer v. Macy, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 321 F.2d 386 (1963); Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App. D.C. 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962). Thus, where procedural requirements have 412 F.2d 392 been complied with, the Court should not inquire into the merits of the employee\......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Polcover v. Secretary of Treasury, No. 71-1920.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 4, 1973
    ...1060, 477 F.2d 1226 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957), to finally the more current "rational basis test," see Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962). Regardless of whether the test of today is framed in the language of determining whether the Commission acted in an arbitrary or capri......
  • Lodge 1858, American Federation of Gov. Emp. v. Paine, No. 22006.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 21, 1970
    ...Court. 105 See Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82, 84, 42 S.Ct. 12, 66 L.Ed. 140 (1921); Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App. D.C. 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962); Powell v. Brannan, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 18, 196 F.2d 871, 873 106 This would, of course, permit a disposition on motion for summary judgmen......
  • Doe v. Hampton, No. 76-1090
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 3, 1977
    ...86 S.Ct. 588, 15 L.Ed.2d 486 (1966); McTiernan v. Gronouski, 337 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 1964); Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 242, 314 F.2d 247, 247 (1962) (per curiam); Jenkyns v. Bd. of Education, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 64, 65, 294 F.2d 260, 261 (1961) (per curiam). See also Seebach v. Cul......
  • Charlton v. United States, No. 16670.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 2, 1969
    ...by the Civil Service Commission. Studemeyer v. Macy, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 321 F.2d 386 (1963); Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App. D.C. 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962). Thus, where procedural requirements have 412 F.2d 392 been complied with, the Court should not inquire into the merits of the employee\......
  • 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