Walsh v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6388. |
| Parties | Robert N. WALSH, Peter Moretti, Fred W. Dickman, Harold O. Battersby, Edwin E. Harbaugh, Alexander Chestnut, Sewell A. Bennett, Charles Wilson, Albert Locke, Daniel Koch, John A. Brady, Margaret M. Flynn, Administratrix of the Estate of Hugh Flynn, Deceased, Clifford Rule, Harry McGalla, Samuel N. Rule, William L. Hess, William Prem, Charles Brady, Henry Christensen, Herbert Burnett, Nicholas J. Masino, John Lamprow, Charles A. McKeever and Frank J. Morrison, v. UNITED STATES of America. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Wilfred R. Lorry (of Freedman, Landy & Lorry), Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Joseph J. Zapitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
The trial judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
I. Findings of Fact.
1. The plaintiffs were hired as firefighters for the Philadelphia Cargo Port of Embarkation at various times during the years 1943 and 1944, by 1st Lieutenant (later Captain) J. F. Rosprin, Transportation Corps, Civilian Personnel Branch, under procedures set up by the War Service Regulations of the Civil Service Commission (see plaintiffs' Requests for Finding of Fact No. 1 and Exhibits D-1—D-25).
2. Such hiring was done pursuant to Orders "M" (attached to Exhibit D-25) issued by the Secretary of War, effective September 1, 1942. Under the authority of 5 U.S.C.A. § 43, Orders "M" delegates the authority of the Secretary of War to the Commanding Generals, Services of Supply, Army Air Forces, and Army Ground Forces, to take final action on personnel transactions in the field service.1 Also, representatives of the Civilian Personnel Division of the Office of the Secretary of War had to assure compliance by these Generals "with Departmental policies, standards, and procedures; Civil Services rules and regulations; Comptroller General's decisions, and established legal requirements; by the appropriate audit and inspection of such actions * * *."
3. There is no specific Act of Congress or Executive Order which authorizes the establishment of a fire department at a War Department installation or which provides for the creation, duties, or method of appointment to the position of firefighter. Such authority stems from the responsibilities of the port commander (see Army Regulations No. 210-10) to provide for the safety and defense of the post (see plaintiffs' and defendant's requested Findings No. 3).
4. The final composition and operation of the fire department for this post was determined by the port commander with command concurrence by the Chief of Transportation. The port engineer (under 10 U.S.C.A. § 181b* and Army Regulations No. 100-80 2b(4) (h)— Exhibit D-27) and the port commander were the administrative officials in charge of the fire department and were responsible for its activities and operation (see plaintiffs' requested Finding No. 2 and Exhibit D-25).
5. Each of the plaintiffs executed an oath of office, affidavit and declaration of appointee (Exhibits D-1—D-24).
6. Plaintiffs' requested Findings of Fact Nos. 4 to 33, inclusive, are adopted as Findings of Fact of this court.
All requests for Findings of Fact which are inconsistent with the foregoing are denied.
II. Discussion.
Plaintiffs brought this action in 1946 to recover overtime compensation allegedly due them under the War Overtime Pay Act of 1943, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 1401 ff., for their services as firefighters. Jurisdiction was based on the Tucker Act, which granted to the District Court original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims, over certain civil actions against the United States.
When this suit was begun, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(20) ()2 read that nothing in the Tucker Act shall be construed as giving the District Court:
"* * * jurisdiction of cases brought to recover fees, salary, or compensation for official services of officers of the United States or brought for such purpose by persons claiming as such officers or as assignees or legal representatives thereof; but no suit pending on the 27th day of June, 1898, shall abate or be affected by this provision."
After the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(d) read:
While the case was pending, § 50(b) of the Act of October 31, 1951, P.L. No. 248, 65 Stat. 710, 727(1951), amended the above provision by adding the two words "or employees" after the word "officers," thereby withdrawing the jurisdiction of the District Court. Such Act did not reserve jurisdiction for the District Court over pending cases and, in accordance with Bruner v. United States, 1952, 343 U.S. 112, 72 S.Ct. 581, 96 L.Ed. 786, defendant's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds was granted on July 7, 1952.
Public Law 562, 70 Stat. 246, 28 U.S. C.A. § 1346 note,3 approved on June 4, 1956, restored jurisdiction to the District Courts over all civil actions or claims to recover fees, salary, or compensation for official services of employees of the United States which were filed prior to October 31, 1951, and on motion of plaintiffs' counsel, this action was reinstated on June 21, 1956.
During a trial held on April 30, 1957, and May 1, 1957, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds (A) that the court is without jurisdiction, and (B) that plaintiffs were properly classified for the period in suit as intermittently or irregularly employed under the terms of 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 1401-1415.
Many of the numerous cases deciding which individuals on the Government payroll are "officers" and which are "employees" are difficult to reconcile.4 However, the United States Supreme Court has emphasized in its most recent case5 on the subject that the "manner in which Congress has specifically provided for" the following three attributes of the position is the determining factor:
a. The creation of the position.
b. The duties of the position.
c. The appointment to the position.
In this case, Findings of Fact Nos. 2 and 3 disclose that a General had been delegated the authority to create and fill these positions, subject to the right of the Civilian Personnel Division of the War Department to assure compliance with certain policies, standards and procedures. The act of Congress under which this delegation of power of appointment was issued by the Secretary of War applied to independent establishments as well as to executive departments. Plaintiffs were actually hired by, or under the direction of, an Army officer operating under Civil Service standards adopted by the War Department ( of Fact No. 1). The rules and regulations governing these firefighters (Exhibit P-1) were received in evidence without objection, but there is no proof as to their origin and Congress clearly had nothing whatever to do with establishing the duties of plaintiffs. Under the facts in this record, the hearing judge concludes that these plaintiffs were not "inferior officers" whose appointment was vested in the "Heads of Departments," as those terms are used in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2,6 of the Constitution of the United States.7 The appointment of "inferior officers" mentioned in the Constitution can only be done by, or with the concurrence or approval of, a "Cabinet Member." See Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 1892, 142 U.S. 651, 653, 12 S.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146.8 The hearing judge agrees with the conclusion reached in Beal v. United States, 6 Cir., 1950, 182 F. 2d 565, certiorari denied 1950, 340 U.S. 852, 71 S.Ct. 81, 95 L.Ed. 625,9 which concerned firefighters of the same type as those involved in this case. In that case, it was held that District Courts had jurisdiction of the suit and that the language formerly contained in 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(20) was inapplicable. See, also, Cain v. United States, D.C.N.D.Ill.1947, 73 F.Supp. 1019; Martin v. United States, 8 Cir., 1909, 168 F. 198, 203; cf. Brooks v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1939, 33 F.Supp. 68.
Although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reached a different conclusion in the case of a "civilian firechief" appointed in March 1941 by the local commanding officer acting for the Secretary of War10 in Bruner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 255, affirmed on other grounds, 1952, 343 U.S. 112, 72 S.Ct. 581, 96 L.Ed. 786, the hearing judge believes that the Beal case is more applicable to the factual situation presented by this record, since the per curiam decision in the Bruner case relied on Kennedy v. United States, 5 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 26, which is clearly distinguishable from the facts involved in this case. The Kennedy case concerned a junior instructor who was appointed with the approval of the Secretary of War, acting pursuant to an Act of Congress which authorized the position to which the instructor was appointed and appropriated funds for the payment of the salary therefor (see footnote 2 at page 28 of 146 F.2d).11
From a review of the evidence, it appears clear that plaintiffs were not, within the meaning of the War Overtime Pay Act of 1943 (50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 1401 ff.), employees "whose hours of duty are intermittent or irregular" or "whose hours of duty are less than full time." The thorough analysis of this issue in Beal v. United States, supra, 182 F.2d at pages 568-570, fully disposes of the contentions made by the parties herein. Further, plaintiffs herein worked twelve hours daily and were on full-duty status during all of this time, not being considered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geiger v. Globe Indemnity Co., Civ. A. 6532.
... ... The GLOBE INDEMNITY CO., Defendant ... Civ. A. 6532 ... United" States District Court E. D. Louisiana New Orleans Division ... November 15, 1957.156 F. Supp. 616\xC2" ... ...