March v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | 72-2062,Nos. 72-1816,s. 72-1816 |
| Citation | 506 F.2d 1306,165 U.S.App.D.C. 267 |
| Parties | Virginia J. MARCH et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America. Virginia J. MARCH et al. v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Isaac N. Groner, Washington, D.C., with whom Alan Y. Cole and Charles R. Both, Washington, D.C., Earl C. Berger, Paris, France, were on the brief, for appellants in No. 72-1816 and appellees in No. 72-2062.
Edwin E. Huddleson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Harold H. Titus, Jr., U.S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Walter H. Fleischer, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellants in No. 72-2062 and appellee in No. 72-1816. Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, and John A. Terry and James M. Hanny, Asst. U.S. Attys., also entered appearances for appellant in No. 72-2062 and appellee in No. 72-1816.
Before FAHY, Senior Circuit Judge, and ROBINSON and WILKEY, Circuit judges.
Virginia March and six other teachers brought this class action in the District Court to challenge the methods used by the Department of Defense in fixing basic salaries and other compensation for teachers employed in its Overseas Dependents Schools (ODS) system. 1 Briefly, the teachers allege that, in violation of the Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act, 2 the Department (1) computes annual salaries on the basis of the preceding year's wages, rather than the current year's wages, for similar teaching positions in the United States; (2) places teachers in lower salary steps than they would have been placed in comparable school districts in the United States; (3) limits credit for past teaching experience to two years; (4) makes no allowances for compensatory time; and (5) calculates the daily rate of compensation, for teachers paid on a daily basis, on a 210-day school year rather than the usual 180 or 190 days. The Department concedes that its computations are performed substantially as alleged by the teachers.
In particular, the teachers claim that these practices are inconsistent with Sections 4(a)(2) and 5(c) of the Act, which direct Department authorities to fix the 'basic compensation for teachers and teaching positions at rates equal to the average of the range of rates of basic compensation for similar positions of a comparable level of duties and responsibilities in urban school jurisdictions in the United States of 100,000 or more population.' 3 The teachers asked for an injunction restraining the practices complained of, and for back pay assertedly due in accordance with the Act since April 14, 1966. 4
There were no disputed issues of material fact, and the District Court disposed of the case on cross-motions for summary judgment. 5 The court granted judgment for the teachers on only one of their claims, finding that the Department's policies of limiting credit for prior teaching experience to two years, and of placing ODS teachers in lower steps than they would have been placed in domestic school districts of 100,000 or greater population, violated the Act. As to the rest of the issues, the court granted judgment for the Government, holding that computation of annual salaries on the basis of salaries in the preceding year was consistent with the Act, and that the remaining practices challenged were reasonable exercises of discretion. The court permanently enjoined the Government from refusing to place and compensate ODS teachers in the steps most closely comparable to those in which they would have been placed in school districts in the United States; 6 on motion by the Government, this injunction was stayed pending appeal to this Court. The court denied the teachers' prayer for damages representing back pay.
The Government appeals from the judgment in favor of the teachers; the teachers appeal the District Court's determinations on the balance of the issues in favor of the Government. From our reading of the Act and related materials, discussed below, two factors stand clearly at odds with the District Court's disposition of certain issues adversely to the teachers-- the unquestionably plain language of the statutory provisions central to the controversy, and the express congressional purpose of a 1966 amendment to the Act. We are thus constrained to reverse the court's judgment in part, affirm it in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.
Shortly after World War II, the United States established the Overseas Dependents Schools to provide educational facilities abroad for dependents of military and civilian personnel. The ODS system, we are told, is the ninth largest American school system, with over 180,000 students and approximately 7,000 teachers. 7
Until 1959, ODS teachers were subject to the civil service laws and regulations. The application to ODS teachers of those general provisions, designed for federal civil servants who worked a regular twelve-month year, 8 created a number of economic inequities. Like stateside teachers, they worked the traditional nine- to ten-month school year. Unlike stateside teachers, however, they could not be paid during the summer months, or the Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter recess periods, 9 nor could their salaries reflect 'their academic background and qualifications, in accordance with the general practice in the United States.' 10 As a result, the annual compensation of ODS teachers was substantially below that of their stateside counterparts. Congress sought to correct this situation by enactment in 1959 of legislation specifically addressing the Department's practices respecting overseas teachers.
The Senate report accompanying the bill that became the Act stated that the purpose of the bill was
to provide a system of personnel administration for schoolteachers and certain school officers and other employees of the dependents schools operated by the Department of Defense in oversea areas comparable to the systems found in the majority of the public primary and secondary school jurisdictions in the United States.
The proposed system recognizes and corrects deficiencies in the present system which the Department of Defense has identified and which long have been apparent. 11
To remedy the deficiencies in compensation we have noted, the Act originally provided that ODS teachers were to be pain 'in relation to the rates of basic compensation for similar positions in the United States.' 12 The Department, pursuant to the Act, promulgated regulations to 'conduct the employment and salary practices applicable to teachers and teaching positions . . . in accordance with (the) Act . . ..' 13 The only specific standard in the Act to guide the Department was a provision that the basic compensation for ODS teachers could not exceed the highest rate of basic compensation for public school teachers in the District of Columbia. 14
In addition to the published regulations, the Department established two procedures that cemented the ODS teachers' annual wage rate considerably below that paid to stateside teachers. First, since Congress had limited appropriations for ODS to a specific amount per student, the Department interpreted the 'in relation to' language of the Act as limiting the teachers' salaries by this 'per pupil limitation.' 15 Second, because Bureau of the Budget regulations prohibited federal agencies from budgeting for anticipated increases in wages or salaries based on prevailing rates outside the Federal Government, 16 the Department calculated the teachers' annual salaries by the preceding year's rate. The former policy has been discontinued, but the latter is still a key element of the Department's computation scheme. 17
The teachers challenged the Department's interpretation, arguing that the Act required it 'to take periodic action to raise (the teachers') salaries to levels equal to those prevailing in the United States . . ..' 18 The Department answered that it was restricted by the per pupil limitation. This dispute resulted in a series of legal battles in which the courts uniformly upheld the Department's construction and its related practices. 19 The historical posture of the case at bar was significantly altered, however, in 1966 when Congress again tried to bring ODS teachers' pay in line with salaries for teaching in comparable school districts in the United States.
In 1965, two congressional subcommittees held hearings, on a proposed amendment to the Act, that clearly and indisputably showed that ODS teachers were not receiving the compensation Congress had intended to provide. 20 In fact, in some respects the teachers had fared worse under the Act than they would have under the civil service laws and regulations. 21 The House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service reported:
The Post Office and Civil Service Committee and the Congress understood that in enacting (the Act) they were providing a firm and reasonable formula for the payment of appropriate salaries to overseas teachers. That understanding has not proved out. (The proposed amendment) provides a standard which, although variable in amount, is positive because the precise dollar amounts in question are readily ascertainable . . .. The bill then goes on to direct and require that the overseas teachers shall be paid salaries determined by the standard. 22
The Committee further enunciated the purpose of the proposed amendment:
To establish a positive, reasonable, and fully effective legislative policy with respect to rates of compensation which shall be paid to teachers in the overseas dependents school system of the Department of Defense, under which policy the Department of Defense and the three military departments shall and must pay such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harry Fox Agency, Inc. v. Mills Music, Inc.
...668 (1976); McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co., 283 U.S. 488, 493-94, 51 S.Ct. 510, 512, 75 L.Ed. 1183 (1931); March v. United States, 506 F.2d 1306, 1314 n.30 (D.C.Cir.1974); Pacific Ins. Co. v. United States, 188 F.2d 571, 572 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. dismissed, 342 U.S. 857, 72 S.Ct......
-
United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
...control construction. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917); March v. United States, 165 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 506 F.2d 1306, 1313 (1974). But there are exceptions to this "rule" under which court may look beyond the express language of a statute in or......
-
Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n v. U.S., s. 83-1581
...799 (D.C.Cir.1981) (citing Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 60, 100 S.Ct. 915, 918, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980)); March v. United States, 506 F.2d 1306, 1313 (D.C.Cir.1974)).82 656 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1981).83 See id. at 1125-27.84 See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10505(a) (1982). The rail transportation po......
-
Wiren v. Eide
...a district court of Tucker Act jurisdiction only where no request for money damages has been made. See March v. United States, 165 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 506 F.2d 1306, 1310-1311 n.6 (1974); Wells v. United States, 280 F.2d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1960); Blanc v. United States, 244 F.2d 708, 709 (2d ......