Reynolds v. Lovett, 10912.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 10912.,10912. |
| Citation | 201 F.2d 181 |
| Parties | REYNOLDS et al. v. LOVETT, Secretary of National Defense et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Joseph Kovner, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. Holmes Baldridge, Mr. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, Washington, D. C., and Edward H. Hickey, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees. William P. Arnold, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance in behalf of appellees. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty. at the time of argument, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before CLARK, PRETTYMAN and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied April 6, 1953. See 73 S.Ct. 784.
This case concerns the rights of civilian Government employees having veterans' preferences. Appellants were honorably discharged soldiers, employed at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and their records were rated good or better. A reduction in the number of employees at the Shipyard was made. Appellants were reduced in their positions and grades, while non-veterans in the same classifications were retained in their positions and grades. Appellee officials say that appellants were demoted because, in the judgment of the officers in charge of the Shipyard, they were not qualified for the supervisory nucleus, composed of the best craftsmen, each one carefully selected on the basis of his individual qualifications. They say that the non-veterans were deemed by them better qualified for supervisory positions than were the appellants. We think that appellees' view that when personnel is reduced the head of an agency may select employees to be retained in any classification on the basis of individual merit and without giving effect to Section 12 of the Veterans' Preference Act1 is erroneous.
The case is reversed and remanded for action in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
While I concur in the result, I by no means proceed on the same ground. I think that the language used by the majority is altogether too lenient for the flagrant disregard of law exhibited by the Secretary of the Navy.
Only one question is presented in this appeal — Can the Secretary of the Navy, or any other administrative official, deliberately flout the will of Congress clearly and without ambiguity expressed in the law of the land?
The law applicable on the subject is the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crowley v. United States, 93-72.
...1147 (1958), which was also exclusively concerned with permanent employees affected by a reduction in force. Reynolds v. Lovett, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 276, 201 F.2d 181 (1952), cert. denied, Wilson v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 926, 73 S.Ct. 784, 97 L.Ed. 1357 (1953), to like effect, reversed a Section 1......
-
White v. Gates
...any possible constitutional difficulty. E. g., Hilton v. Sullivan, 334 U.S. 323, 68 S.Ct. 1020, 92 L.Ed. 1416; Reynolds v. Lovett, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 276, 201 F.2d 181, certiorari denied Wilson v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 926, 73 S.Ct. 784, 97 L.Ed. In a one-line per curiam opinion the New York Cour......
-
Powers v. Gold
..."reduction of force" within the meaning of § 12 of the Veterans' Preference Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 861 or the holding in Reynolds v. Lovett, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 276, 201 F.2d 181, and there has been no violation of any other provision of law giving veterans preference. Cf. Elder v. Brannan, 341 U.S.......
-
Group v. Finletter, Civ. A. No. 4331-52.
...remedies he may have before seeking to vindicate his rights in Court. Wettre v. Hague, 1 Cir., 168 F.2d 825, 826. See also Reynolds v. Lovett, D.C.Cir., 201 F.2d 181. In the Wettre case, supra, the Court cited the case of Order of Railway Conductors of America v. Pitney, 326 U.S. 561, 566, ......