Liebke v. Brown, Civ. A. No. 68-481-F.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 68-481-F.
• Citation: 312 F. Supp. 1053
• Parties: George D. LIEBKE, No. Reading, Massachusetts, Plaintiff, v. Harold BROWN, Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D. C., Robert F. Long, Colonel, Commander Air Force, Cambridge Research Laboratory, Bedford Massachusetts, John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commissioners, Washington, D. C., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

312 F. Supp. 1053

George D. LIEBKE, No. Reading, Massachusetts, Plaintiff, v. Harold BROWN, Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D. C., Robert F. Long, Colonel, Commander Air Force, Cambridge Research Laboratory, Bedford Massachusetts, John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commissioners, Washington, D. C., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 68-481-F.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

May 12, 1970.

Alfred L. Morin, Needham, Mass., for plaintiff.

Herbert F. Travers, U. S. Atty., for defendants.

OPINION

FRANCIS J. W. FORD, District Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 seeking restoration to his position as an employee of the United States Air Force. Plaintiff had been a civilian employee of the Air Force since 1950 and in late 1965 was employed as a Program Liaison Officer at the Air Force Research Laboratories at Hanscom Field.

On December 16, 1965 plaintiff entered a guilty plea in a state court on morals charges. On the following day he was suspended from his employment by the Air Force. Later in December one Brady, a representative of Liebke's superior in the Air Force, urged Liebke to resign his position in order to avoid a scandal. Brady also persuaded Liebke's brother to give him similar advice. As a result on January 3, 1966 plaintiff wrote a letter to Colonel Long, commander of the Research Laboratories, offering his resignation to be effective on May 1, 1966. On January 27, 1966 Colonel Long gave Liebke formal notice of proposed action to remove him from his position. On February 8, 1966 Colonel Long notified Liebke that the notice of proposed removal had been cancelled and his resignation had been accepted.

Liebke contends that Brady and Long had both indicated that if he resigned he would be given a clean record. However, the Notification of Personnel Action issued to effectuate his separation from the Air Force service carried a notation that his resignation had been accepted while consideration was being given to initiation of removal action because of charges of disorderly conduct.

On April 29, 1966 Liebke wrote to Long stating: "I hereby withdraw my purported resignation." On May 2 Colonel Long wrote to Liebke refusing to accept withdrawal of the resignation. A grievance filed by Liebke on May 13, 1966 was rejected by the Personnel Officer on May 26, 1966, and a further grievance filed June 7, 1966 was rejected on June 9, 1966. Subsequent proceedings by plaintiff to obtain relief from the Civil Service Commission were ultimately terminated by a decision of the Board of Appeals and Review that the appeal to the Civil Service Commission had been filed too late.

Since some time in November, 1965 plaintiff had been under treatment by Dr. Leo Alexander, a psychiatrist. On December 20, 1965 Dr. Alexander wrote to Allen Gerlach, Deputy for Technical Plans and Operations, and Liebke's superior, informing him of these facts and asking for information which might help in his treatment. On February 4, 1966 Dr. Alexander wrote to Colonel Long. This letter was received on February 7, the day before Colonel Long accepted Liebke's resignation. The letter informed Colonel Long of the fact that Liebke was under treatment and gave Dr. Alexander's diagnosis as: "Depressive reaction, neurotic, with symptomatic psychosexual disturbance." In his January 3 letter of resignation and in another letter sent February 1, 1966 Liebke informed Colonel Long that he was under psychiatric treatment.

It is plaintiff's contention that his purported resignation was obtained by coercive and deceptive action of the Air Force and was accepted in violation of the prescribed procedures governing such acceptance and hence was void.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the contention that plaintiff's resignation was induced by undue pressure from the representatives of the Air Force while he was in a mentally upset condition and that his decision may have been influenced by promises that no derogatory remarks...