Eustace v. Day
| Decision Date | 20 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 16780.,16780. |
| Citation | 114 US App. DC 242,314 F.2d 247 |
| Parties | Conrad C. EUSTACE, Appellant, v. J. Edward DAY, Postmaster General et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
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.
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. Ed. 507 (1949); Levine v. Farley, 70 denied, 308 U.S. 622, 60 S.Ct. 377, 84 L. Ed. 519 (1940).
Affirmed.
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 1912.1 The claim of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Hampton, 76-1090
...U.S. 998, 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 Seeb......
-
Charlton v. United States
...has been sustained 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 been complied with, the Court should not inquire into the merits of the emp......
-
Polcover v. Secretary of Treasury, 71-1920.
...denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 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 a......
-
Lodge 1858, American Federation of Gov. Emp. v. Paine, 22006.
...by the District 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......