McEachern v. Macy
Decision Date | 08 July 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4140. |
Parties | Clement L. McEACHERN, Plaintiff, v. John W. MACY, Jr., Chairman, the United States Civil Service Commission, Frederick J. Lawton, Commission, the United States Civil Service Commission, Robert E. Hampton, Commissioner, the United States Civil Service Commission, Robert M. Ball, Commissioner of Social Security, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Charles C. Moore, Spartanburg, S. C., Clement L. McEachern, pro se, for plaintiff.
Robert O. DuPre, Asst. U. S. Atty., Greenville, S. C., for defendants.
Action for review of decision of the United States Civil Service Commission recommending removal of plaintiff from the position of Hearing Examiner of the Social Security Administration and prayer for reinstatement of plaintiff to the position. The original action commenced August 29, 1962, as an action against the United States of America, as defendant, was dismissed on grounds that the United States District Court had no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Civil Service Commission.1 On appeal from that order the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the District Court had jurisdiction, approved venue in the district of plaintiff's residence and remanded the case for a review hearing, at the same time holding that the members of the Civil Service Commission, not the United States, were the proper parties, and allowing plaintiff to implead proper defendants.2
Clement L. McEachern is a resident of Greenville, South Carolina, having been sent to South Carolina as a Hearing Examiner of the Social Security Administration, which, on October 30, 1961, filed with the Civil Service Commission a general charge against plaintiff that he was financially irresponsible, specifying eight incidents of such failure, which allegedly brought discredit on the Agency and hence on the Department and the United States. Formal notice of the charges was served on plaintiff. After a full hearing attended by McEachern, an attorney in his own right, and his counsel, the Civil Service Commission, on July 16, 1962, rendered its opinion, making a determination that the charge of financial irresponsibility was sustained and that good cause had been established for the removal of the respondent from the position of Hearing Examiner, plaintiff was ordered removed from the Federal service. The present action asks for review and reversal of that decision and order, alleging that there was no substantial evidence that plaintiff brought discredit upon the Department, and generally claiming error of decision on the part of the Commission. Of the eight specific charges only four were sustained; four were dismissed.
Title 5 U.S.C. § 1010 provides:
* * *"
After remand, the review was had at Greenville, S. C., June 8, 1964, at which hearing plaintiff appeared pro se,3 he being a lawyer admitted to practice in the court of hearing.
Although the matter was not de novo full opportunity was given to plaintiff to conduct his presentation as he wished. He presented oral argument and filed a written brief.
The general charge against the respondent, stated in the first paragraph of the Statement of Charges and Specifications presented to the Civil Service Commission, reads as follows:
The Department's policy concerning the financial affairs of its employees is contained in Personnel Guide 2, in Chapter C-2 of its Personnel Manual, issued October 10, 1953. It recognizes that Federal employees have a special responsibility to meet their financial obligations promptly inasmuch as Federal salaries are not subject to attachment or garnishment. It states that it "becomes a matter of concern to the Department when complaints are received from * * * (an employee's) creditors, when it appears that financial difficulties are impairing his efficiency on the job, or when, by reason of his irresponsibility, the attitude of the general public toward the Department is adversely affected."4
At the hearing before this Court plaintiff was asked about the specific items. He admitted the indebtednesses, the delinquencies in the four accounts or charges sustained by the Civil Service Commission, but complained of the manner of proof and the conduct of the hearing.5
There is no basis for a contention that the Civil Service Commission did not have substantial evidence before it to sustain its findings. In the Summary and Conclusions of the Decision and Order of the Commission is found the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. Bloomberg
...laborer to pay his just financial obligations, from eleven different creditors over a period of three years. In McEachern v. Macy, 233 F.Supp. 516 (W.D.S.C.1964), aff'd, 341 F.2d 895 (4th Cir.1965), the employee was charged with eight instances of financial delinquency. But see Carter v. Fo......
-
Rusignuolo v. Orechio
...Tp. v. Armstrong, 89 N.J.Super. 560, 215 A.2d 775 (App.Div.1965), cert. den. 47 N.J. 80, 219 A.2d 417 (1966). Cf. McEachern v. Macy, 233 F.Supp. 516 (W.D. S.C.1964), aff'd 341 F.2d 895 (4 Cir. We agree with the principle reflected by these decisions. Inexcusable failure to pay ordinary debt......
-
Norton v. Macy
...had received "40 complaints and/or contracts" from creditors of the appellant. 367 F.2d at 64. 33 See id. at 64-65; McEachern v. Macy, 233 F.Supp. 516, 519 (W.D.S.C.1964). 34 Appellant has also argued that the evidence against him by the agency was tainted by an illegal arrest, an illegal d......
-
Dennis v. Blount
...See Carter v. Forrestal, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 175 F.2d 364, 366; McEachern v. Macy, 4 Cir., 1965, 341 F. 2d 895, aff'g W.D.S.C., 1964, 233 F. Supp. 516; Jenkins v. Macy, 8 Cir. 1966, 357 F.2d 62, 70, aff'g E.D.Mo., 1964, 237 F.Supp. 60; Non-Resident Taxpayers Ass'n v. Municipality of P......