Washington v. Summerfield

• Decision Date: 23 November 1955
• Docket Number: No. 12644.,12644.
• Citation: 97 US App. DC 105,228 F.2d 452
• Parties: William Ody WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. Arthur E. SUMMERFIELD, Postmaster General of the United States, and Philip Young et al., Commissioners, United States Civil Service Commission, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

97 US App. DC 105, 228 F.2d 452 (1955)

William Ody WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. Arthur E. SUMMERFIELD, Postmaster General of the United States, and Philip Young et al., Commissioners, United States Civil Service Commission, Appellees.

No. 12644.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued November 3, 1955.

Decided November 23, 1955.

Mr. Frank Smith, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and William F. Becker, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellees.

Before BAZELON, DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

This suit was initiated in the District Court by the filing of a complaint for a judgment declaring that appellant's (plaintiff's) removal from his position as clerk in the Post Office Department was not in accordance with law, and praying for reinstatement to his position. After answer, each party moved for summary judgment. The motions were referred to the Commissioner of Veterans' Cases, who in his report and opinion recommended that the appellant's motion be denied and appellee's motion for summary judgment be granted. Some time thereafter the District Court entered an order denying appellant's motion and granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.

Appellant's allegations, set forth in detail in the complaint, may be reduced to: (1) the Post Office Department denied him, as a veterans preference eligible, an opportunity to answer charges in person within said department; (2) certain charges of delinquency and improper demeanor on the job were not communicated to appellant in the original letter of charges; and (3) procedural violations in points 1 and 2 were not cured by the trial processes of the Civil Service Commission.

Appellee's answer admitted that appellant was a veterans preference eligible. It was urged, however, that no rights of appellant were violated in his removal from service; and, as an affirmative defense, it was alleged that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that the subject matter of the complaint was barred by laches. The defense of laches apparently is not pressed.

Since it is obvious that appellant's third point, referred to above, depends in great part on consideration of the other two, we shall treat counts one and two, and do so in reverse order.

The record indicates that on October 16, 1952 appellant was charged by the Postmaster for the District of Columbia with unsatisfactory scheme examinations¹ and unsatisfactory attendance. Details with respect to each charge were set forth. Appellant personally responded in writing to these charges on October 21, 1952. His answer concluded with a request for "an opportunity to come in to see you the Postmaster personally. * * *"

On October 29, 1952, the Postmaster forwarded a copy of the letter of charges, dated October 16, 1952, and appellant's answer, dated October 21, 1952, to the Assistant Postmaster General with a request that authority be issued for the employee's removal. The covering letter of October 29 set forth certain additional irregularities not contained in the letter of charges served on appellant. On November 8, 1952, the Assistant Postmaster General advised appellant that his removal was authorized effective November 22, 1952. This letter mentioned specifically only the charges preferred against appellant for unsatisfactory scheme examinations and unsatisfactory attendance. The Postmaster, in a formal notice of removal dated November 7, 1952, also stated that removal was based on consideration of the charges preferred against appellant for unsatisfactory scheme examination and unsatisfactory...