Jessie M. Yates v. Bernard J. Manale, U.S. Army Oversea Supply Agency, U.S. Civil Servicecommission

Fifth Circuit

Jessie M. Yates v. Bernard J. Manale, U.S. Army Oversea Supply Agency, U.S. Civil Servicecommission

377 F.2d 888, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6095

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 7, 1967

Docket23313

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 377 F.2d 888 (Jessie M. Yates v. Bernard J. Manale, U.S. Army Oversea Supply Agency, U.S. Civil Servicecommission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jessie M. Yates v. Bernard J. Manale, U.S. Army Oversea Supply Agency, U.S. Civil Servicecommission, 377 F.2d 888, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6095 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinions

[889]*889PER CURIAM:

Appellant was a stenographic traffic clerk with the United States Army Oversea Supply Agency. On November 15, 1962, she was advised in writing by her superior that to determine her fitness for duty arrangements had been made for her to take a medical examination at no cost to her. The next day appellant refused in writing to submit to the examination. She was duly advised by the agency that her refusal could be viewed as an act of insubordination. Nevertheless, she persisted in her refusal and was discharged for insubordination. That decision was affirmed by the Civil Service Commission and the Board of Appeals and Review. Judicial relief was sought by the appellant in the District Court which granted the appellees' motion for a summary judgment. We affirm.

Appellant sought both in the administrative actions and in the judicial proceedings to challenge the necessity of her taking a medical examination. But that was not the issue upon which she was discharged; her insubordination stemmed from her refusal to submit to the examination and not from the reasons the agency may have had for seeking such an examination.

The court below correctly concluded there were no genuine issues of material facts and that the uncontroverted record established that in discharging appellant her superiors had substantially complied with the applicable statutes and regulations.

The appellant is without standing to contend bias by the District Court since she failed to file a timely affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. Furthermore, the decision below rested solely on legal conclusions which have been fully reviewed by this Court and found correct.

This affirmance is without prejudice to appellant raising, if she chooses, in the court below the issue of her competency on the date of her refusal to submit to the examination.

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

[889]*889PER CURIAM:

Appellant was a stenographic traffic clerk with the United States Army Oversea Supply Agency. On November 15, 1962, she was advised in writing by her superior that to determine her fitness for duty arrangements had been made for her to take a medical examination at no cost to her. The next day appellant refused in writing to submit to the examination. She was duly advised by the agency that her refusal could be viewed as an act of insubordination. Nevertheless, she persisted in her refusal and was discharged for insubordination. That decision was affirmed by the Civil Service Commission and the Board of Appeals and Review. Judicial relief was sought by the appellant in the District Court which granted the appellees' motion for a summary judgment. We affirm.

Appellant sought both in the administrative actions and in the judicial proceedings to challenge the necessity of her taking a medical examination. But that was not the issue upon which she was discharged; her insubordination stemmed from her refusal to submit to the examination and not from the reasons the agency may have had for seeking such an examination.

The court below correctly concluded there were no genuine issues of material facts and that the uncontroverted record established that in discharging appellant her superiors had substantially complied with the applicable statutes and regulations.

The appellant is without standing to contend bias by the District Court since she failed to file a timely affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. Furthermore, the decision below rested solely on legal conclusions which have been fully reviewed by this Court and found correct.

This affirmance is without prejudice to appellant raising, if she chooses, in the court below the issue of her competency on the date of her refusal to submit to the examination.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 F.2d 888, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessie-m-yates-v-bernard-j-manale-us-army-oversea-supply-agency-us-ca5-1967.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack