Gradall v. United States
Decision Date | 10 May 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 4-60.,4-60. |
Citation | 329 F.2d 960 |
Parties | Glen P. GRADALL v. The UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Thomas H. King, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. Clifford A. Sheldon, Washington, D. C., on the brief.
Katherine H. Johnson, Alexandria, Va., with whom was John W. Douglas, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WHITAKER, LARAMORE, DURFEE and DAVIS, Judges.
This is an action to recover an amount recouped from plaintiff's retired pay under the limitations on dual compensation of the Economy Act of 1932, as amended. Plaintiff was drawing retirement pay as an Army captain with over 30 years' service, having been employed by the Army Exchange Service and the Air Force Exchange Service.
This court decided on May 9, 1962 that plaintiff as a retired officer was not exempt from the Economy Act of 1932, and further stated, Gradall v. United States, No. 4-60, Ct.Cl. (decided May 9, 1962 — slip opinion, p. 5):
As a result of an understanding between the parties reached at the pretrial conference, after the submission of all pertinent evidence to the commissioner which is of record, by specific suggestion of the trial commissioner, plaintiff again moved for summary judgment. The facts are not in dispute.
The question presented is whether Congress in enacting section 212(a) of the Economy Act of June 30, 1932, intended that a person who receives civilian compensation for services performed for the Army or Air Force Exchange Service be considered as holding a civilian office or position "under the United States Government."
The Act of June 30, 1932, 47 Stat. 406, provides in pertinent part:
"Sec. 212(a) After the date of the enactment of this Act, no person holding a civilian office or position, appointive or elective, under the United States Government or the municipal government of the District of Columbia or under any corporation, the majority of the stock of which is owned by the United States, shall be entitled, during the period of such incumbency, to retired pay from the United States * * * at a rate in excess of an amount which when combined with the annual rate of compensation from such civilian office or position, makes the total rate from both sources more than $3,000; * * * $10,000 as later amended."
Involved in the determination of the question presented is not only the legal status of the position, but also the legal status of the employer and of the employee.
The position of the Exchange Service as an "instrumentality" of the Government, when considered for tax exemption purposes, was fully stated in Standard Oil Co. of California v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 483, 62 S.Ct. 1168, 1169, 86 L.Ed. 1611 (1942):
It is evident that Congress became concerned that the decision in Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, supra, holding that Exchanges were tax exempt instrumentalities of the United States, might serve as a precedent that the Government might be liable to the employees of these instrumentalities by virtue of the Civil Service Laws or the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Thereafter, Congress enacted the Act of June 19, 1952, 5 U.S.C. § 150k, which provides:
"Civilian employees, compensated from nonappropriated funds, of the Army * * * Exchange Service, * * * and other instrumentalities of the United States under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces * * * shall not be held and considered as employees of the United States for the purpose of any laws administered by the Civil Service Commission or the provisions of the Federal Employees\' Compensation Act, * * * Provided, That the status of these nonappropriated fund activities as Federal instrumentalities shall not be affected."
Although the Exchange is an "instrumentality" of the United States, its "civilian employees, compensated from nonappropriated funds" are not employees of the United States "for the purpose of any laws administered by the Civil Service Commission or the provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act." Section 2 of the Act of 1952, supra, requires the nonappropriated fund instrumentalities to provide compensation for death or disability incurred in the course of employment, by insurance or otherwise.
The authorized Army Regulations, which as stated in Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, supra, "have the force of law," provide:
AR-60-10, AFR 147-7A, Exchange Service, dated August 2, 1960, Section 1(7).
Plaintiff's contract of employment with the Exchange specifically provided that it did not constitute a contract with the Department of the Army, the Air Force or the United States Government, and that "although EUCOM exchange system is an instrumentality of the U. S. Government * * * you are not considered to be a federal employee."
On the other hand, the Regulations of the Army and Air Force provide:
* * *"AR-60-21, AFR-147-15
This regulation is in accord with the statutory provisions for unemployment compensation for Federal employees. 42 U.S.C. § 1361:
This definition of Federal service is expressly limited by the prefatory statement "When used in this subchapter" which clearly confines its meaning to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Accordingly it cannot be extended to include a position "under the United States Government" as provided in the Economy Act of 1932.
A civilian employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States, injured in the course of his employment, cannot recover damages from the Government, under the Federal Tort Claims Act or the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. His exclusive remedy is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hopkins v. United States
...recovery, holding that plaintiff was not a Federal employee. No elaboration was made, but the Keetz court cited Gradall v. United States, 329 F.2d 960, 161 Ct.Cl. 714 (1963), in which it was held that plaintiff's employment in the AAFES did not constitute a civilian "office or position unde......
-
Roelofs v. Lewals, Inc.
...1289 (5th Cir.) (42 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1717, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8150 incorporated by reference, 42 U.S.C. § 1701 (a)); Gradall v. United States, 329 F. 2d 960, 161 Ct.Cl. 714 (1963) (Federal Tort Claims Act or the Federal Employees' Compensation Act and 5 U.S.C. § 150(k)); Rizzuto v. United State......
-
Slattery v. United States
...would not be liable. Id. (Whitaker, J., concurring). The Court of Claims again denied Tucker Act jurisdiction in Gradall v. United States, 329 F.2d 960 (Ct.Cl.1963), applying the military regulations to a claim that raised the question of whether post exchange employees were covered by the ......
-
United States v. Demko
...United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 21, 190 F.2d 22, cert. denied, 342 U.S. 869, 72 S.Ct. 110, 96 L.Ed. 653. See also Gradall v. United States, 329 F.2d 960, 963, 161 Ct.Cl. 714; Denenberg v. United States, 305 F.2d 378, 379—380, 158 Ct.Cl. 5 39 Stat. 742, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 751 et seq. 6 Th......