Stapleton v. Macy
Decision Date | 28 June 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 16683.,16683. |
Parties | D. V. STAPLETON, Appellant, v. John W. MACY, Jr., et al., Individually and as Members of the Civil Service Commission, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Donald M. Murtha, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Edward Berlin, Attorney, Department of Justice, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. William H. Orrick, Jr., Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Alan S. Rosenthal, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Jerry C. Straus also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before BAZELON, WASHINGTON and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
The Smith-Hughes Act1 makes federal funds available to states providing vocational education pursuant to a plan prepared by themselves but approved by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Appellant was employed by the State of Mississippi in such a program from 1924 to 1928 as a Supervisor and Itinerant Teacher-Trainer of Agriculture. He now claims that those years should be counted as part2 of his period of creditable service under Section 3 of the Civil Service Retirement Act. 5 U.S.C.A. § 2253. After due proceedings, the validity of which is not attacked, the Civil Service Commission rejected the claim on the ground that appellant's employment in the Mississippi vocational training program was not as an "employee" of the Federal Government. See 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 2251(a), 2251(k), 2253(a). The District Court dismissed appellant's application for Declaratory Judgment.
1 20 U.S.C.A. § 11 et seq.
2 Appellant has been a federal employee since 1928.
3 Appellant does not really dispute the validity of the criteria, but rather the finding that his employment failed to satisfy them. These criteria have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baker v. United States
...to meet all the requirements for a federal employee as provided by 5 U.S.C.A. § 2105 and by the case law. See Stapleton v. Macy, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 304 F.2d 954 (D.C.Cir.1962). Accordingly, his claim for retirement credit for his service with the NYSES from June 6, 1933, to April 14, 1941......
-
Anselmo v. Ailes
...and direction of a Federal officer." Cited as confirmatory of its views, and so found by this Court to be, were Stapleton v. Macy, 304 F.2d 954 (D.C.Cir. 1962)7 and 21 Comp.Gen. Plaintiffs rest their case upon the inadequate prop of a judicial authority which applies under the aegis of the ......
-
Costner v. United States, 167-79C.
...(1965); S.Rep.No. 1390, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 47 (1966). The commission has used precisely these criteria since 1944. Stapleton v. Macy, 304 F.2d 954, 955 n.3 (D.C.Cir.1962) (affirming the validity of the statutory factors). The section 2105(a) definition is made applicable to the eligibilit......
-
Whalen v. Office of Personnel Management, 91-3438
...Civil Service Commission had used since 1944 the same criteria as are stated in § 2105. Id. at 1580. See generally Stapleton v. Macy, 304 F.2d 954, 955 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1962); H.R.Rep. No. 901, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, 27 (1965); S.Rep. No. 1380, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 47 (1966). See also Jankov......