Medoff v. Freeman, Civ. A. No. 63-724.

• Decision Date: 14 October 1965
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 63-724.
• Parties: Maurice MEDOFF, Plaintiff, v. Orville L. FREEMAN, as he is Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

246 F. Supp. 125

Maurice MEDOFF, Plaintiff, v. Orville L. FREEMAN, as he is Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 63-724.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

October 14, 1965.

Morris M. Goldings, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Melvin B. Miller, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for defendant.

CAFFREY, District Judge.

This is an action for declaratory and other relief in which the parties have filed a written stipulation that the following facts constitute all of the facts necessary for the determination of the action:

1. The plaintiff was appointed on October 3, 1961 to the position of Plant Quarantine Inspector in the United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Quarantine Division, Agricultural Research Service.

2. The plaintiff was given a Career-Conditional Appointment in the competitive service and was required to serve a probationary period of one year from October 3, 1961, the date of his appointment.

3. On or about September 27, 1962, plaintiff received a Notification of Personnel Action signed by one Paul K. Knierin, employment officer, and dated September 26, 1962.

4. On or about September 27, 1962, plaintiff received a letter dated September 26, 1962 signed by Paul K. Knierin.

5. Executive Orders 10987 and 10988 were in effect from January 17, 1962 and at all subsequent times relevant to this case. The Executive Orders are entitled "Agency Systems for Appeals from Adverse Actions" and "Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Service" respectively.

6. At all times relevant to this case, Department of Agriculture Regulations Title 8, Chapters 45 and 58, were in effect. The said regulations are entitled "Grievance Appeals Procedure" and "Adverse Actions—Departmental Appeals System" respectively.

7. By letter dated October 1, 1962 the plaintiff appealed to the Department of Agriculture the ruling of the defendant as stated in the documents referred to in paragraphs numbered 3 and 4, and requested the opportunity for a hearing under Regulations Title 8 Chapter 45 of the Department of Agriculture and any and all other applicable sections.

8. The plaintiff appealed the ruling of the defendant to the Civil Service Commission and requested the opportunity for a hearing.

9. By letter dated November 7, 1962 the defendant informed the plaintiff that he did not have any appeal rights in the Department of Agriculture.

10. By letter dated October 16, 1962 the plaintiff was informed by the Regional Director of the Boston Regional Office of the United States Civil Service Commission that the Civil Service Commission has no authority by law or regulation to pass upon the merits of an action of another agency in separating an employee during his probationary period, except when it is claimed that the action was taken for political reasons, or because of discrimination because of marital status or physical handicap, or when review is required by law. Plaintiff was also informed that he could appeal further to the Board of Appeals and Review, United States Civil Service Commission, Washington 25, D. C.

11. By letter dated January 24, 1963 plaintiff was informed by the Chairman, Board of Appeals and Review, United States Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C., that the Commission was without authority to consider further the matter of plaintiff's separation during probation, and the decision of the Boston Regional Office was affirmed.

I rule that this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1361. For this reason I do not reach the...