Bailey

Court of Claims

Bailey

174 Ct. Cl. 1274, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 192, 1966 WL 1514

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 24, 1966

DocketNo. 124-65

StatusPublished

This text of 174 Ct. Cl. 1274 (Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey, 174 Ct. Cl. 1274, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 192, 1966 WL 1514 (cc 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Civilian pay; lea/oe without pay; Court of Claims, jurisdiction; torts. — Plaintiff, an employee of the United States Department of Labor, having exhausted his annual and sick leave, in 1964 was placed on leave without pay while suffering from a neuropsychiatric ailment. His requests to be returned to duty were denied and on appeal to the Civil Service Commission the denial was affirmed. In February 1965 plaintiff returned to duty with the Department of Labor. He brings suit to recover the pay lost during the periods when he claims he should not have been placed on leave without pay because, in his opinion, he was ready, willing and able to perform the duties of his position. He also seeks damages for slander, defamation of character and negligence on the part of the Department of Labor, and for specific relief not in the nature of money damages. Defendant has moved for summary judgment in its favor and dismissal of the petition on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of plaintiff’s alleged tort claims or his other claims for specific relief and that with respect to his claim for pay during the periods when he was on leave without pay the record shows that he was not able to work. Upon consideration of defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s opposition thereto and without oral argument, the court concluded that insofar as the claim is for damages for alleged tortious action by the Government and insofar as the claim is for injunctive relief, the claim is not within the jurisdiction of the court. It is further concluded that on the claim relating [1275]*1275to plaintiff’s being placed on leave without pay, the record adequately supports the defendant’s determination that plaintiff was ill and unable to work and there is no showing of a triable issue relating to abuse of discretion. On January 24,1966, it was ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and the petition was dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Civilian pay; lea/oe without pay; Court of Claims, jurisdiction; torts. — Plaintiff, an employee of the United States Department of Labor, having exhausted his annual and sick leave, in 1964 was placed on leave without pay while suffering from a neuropsychiatric ailment. His requests to be returned to duty were denied and on appeal to the Civil Service Commission the denial was affirmed. In February 1965 plaintiff returned to duty with the Department of Labor. He brings suit to recover the pay lost during the periods when he claims he should not have been placed on leave without pay because, in his opinion, he was ready, willing and able to perform the duties of his position. He also seeks damages for slander, defamation of character and negligence on the part of the Department of Labor, and for specific relief not in the nature of money damages. Defendant has moved for summary judgment in its favor and dismissal of the petition on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of plaintiff’s alleged tort claims or his other claims for specific relief and that with respect to his claim for pay during the periods when he was on leave without pay the record shows that he was not able to work. Upon consideration of defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s opposition thereto and without oral argument, the court concluded that insofar as the claim is for damages for alleged tortious action by the Government and insofar as the claim is for injunctive relief, the claim is not within the jurisdiction of the court. It is further concluded that on the claim relating [1275]*1275to plaintiff’s being placed on leave without pay, the record adequately supports the defendant’s determination that plaintiff was ill and unable to work and there is no showing of a triable issue relating to abuse of discretion. On January 24,1966, it was ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and the petition was dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 Ct. Cl. 1274, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 192, 1966 WL 1514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-cc-1966.