Conrad C. Eustace v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General

D.C. Circuit

Conrad C. Eustace v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General

314 F.2d 247, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 242, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3284

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 1962

Docket16780

StatusPublished

Cited by36 cases

This text of 314 F.2d 247 (Conrad C. Eustace v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conrad C. Eustace v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General, 314 F.2d 247, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 242, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3284 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order of the District Court granting summary judgment and denying the relief sought. Appellant is a discharged Government employee entitled to the benefits of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 851-869 (1958). He sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate his discharge, and an order for reinstatement to the postal service.

In our view, the record in this case shows that the conclusion of the Post Office Department and the Civil Service Commission, holding that the conduct of appellant was such as to bring the Department into disrepute and was unbecoming a postal employee, was not arbitrary, capricious, or unwarranted. We agree with the District Judge that “[i]f there is a rational basis for the conclusions reached by the administrative agency and if all requirements of law are complied with, the Court may not step in and substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency,” and that there was such basis here. See Ellis v. Mueller, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 280 F.2d 722, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 883, 81 S.Ct. 172, 5 L.Ed.2d 104 (1960); Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App. D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29, cert. denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957); see also Carter v. Forrestal, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 175 F.2d 364, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 832, 70 S.Ct. 47, 94 L. *248 Ed. 507 (1949); Levine v. Farley, 70 denied, 308 U.S. 622, 60 S.Ct. 377, 84 L. Ed. 519 (1940).

Affirmed.

FAHY, Circuit Judge (concurring in the result).

I concur in the result but do so only after considering appellant’s claim of protected union activity under rights said to stem from Section 6(c) of the Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912. 1 The claim of some such protection in and of itself may have merit; but, even so, in the context of all the facts of this case I do not think the courts should set aside the action of the Civil Service Commission.

1

. 37 Stat. 555, as amended, 62 Stat. 354, 5 U.S.C.A. § 652(e).

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order of the District Court granting summary judgment and denying the relief sought. Appellant is a discharged Government employee entitled to the benefits of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 851-869 (1958). He sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate his discharge, and an order for reinstatement to the postal service.

In our view, the record in this case shows that the conclusion of the Post Office Department and the Civil Service Commission, holding that the conduct of appellant was such as to bring the Department into disrepute and was unbecoming a postal employee, was not arbitrary, capricious, or unwarranted. We agree with the District Judge that “[i]f there is a rational basis for the conclusions reached by the administrative agency and if all requirements of law are complied with, the Court may not step in and substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency,” and that there was such basis here. See Ellis v. Mueller, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 280 F.2d 722, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 883, 81 S.Ct. 172, 5 L.Ed.2d 104 (1960); Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App. D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29, cert. denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957); see also Carter v. Forrestal, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 175 F.2d 364, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 832, 70 S.Ct. 47, 94 L. *248 Ed. 507 (1949); Levine v. Farley, 70 denied, 308 U.S. 622, 60 S.Ct. 377, 84 L. Ed. 519 (1940).

Affirmed.

FAHY, Circuit Judge (concurring in the result).

I concur in the result but do so only after considering appellant’s claim of protected union activity under rights said to stem from Section 6(c) of the Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912. 1 The claim of some such protection in and of itself may have merit; but, even so, in the context of all the facts of this case I do not think the courts should set aside the action of the Civil Service Commission.

1

. 37 Stat. 555, as amended, 62 Stat. 354, 5 U.S.C.A. § 652(e).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 F.2d 247, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 242, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conrad-c-eustace-v-j-edward-day-postmaster-general-cadc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack