Kletzing v. Young

D.C. Circuit

Kletzing v. Young

210 F.2d 729, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 374, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2489

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 1954

Docket11845

StatusPublished

This text of 210 F.2d 729 (Kletzing v. Young) 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

Kletzing v. Young, 210 F.2d 729, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 374, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2489 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

With the aid of readers the appellant, who is blind, passed Civil Service examinations for certain government positions the duties of which he would not have been able to perform without employing readers. The Civil Service Commission, after entering his name on the resulting registers of eligibles,'told him his eligibility was being cancelled because of his handicap. He asserted a right to be restored to the registers, and asked for injunctive and declaratory relief. His complaint alleged, among other things, that the cancellation of his eligibility violated 62 Stat. 351, 5 U.S. C.A. § 633(2)9, which forbids the Commission to discriminate against a physically handicapped person “with respect to any position the duties of which, in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission, may be efficiently performed by a person with such a physical-handicap, # * *»

- Since the registers to which appellant seeks to be restored have expired under the Commission’s usual practice, - the District Court rightly dismissed the, complaint as moot. The fact that the legal question appellant seeks to raise may recur in the future does not defeat the defense of mootness. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 341 U.S. 901, 71 S.Ct. 613, 95 L.Ed. 1341, reversing 87 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 185 F„2d 426.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

With the aid of readers the appellant, who is blind, passed Civil Service examinations for certain government positions the duties of which he would not have been able to perform without employing readers. The Civil Service Commission, after entering his name on the resulting registers of eligibles,'told him his eligibility was being cancelled because of his handicap. He asserted a right to be restored to the registers, and asked for injunctive and declaratory relief. His complaint alleged, among other things, that the cancellation of his eligibility violated 62 Stat. 351, 5 U.S. C.A. § 633(2)9, which forbids the Commission to discriminate against a physically handicapped person “with respect to any position the duties of which, in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission, may be efficiently performed by a person with such a physical-handicap, # * *»

- Since the registers to which appellant seeks to be restored have expired under the Commission’s usual practice, - the District Court rightly dismissed the, complaint as moot. The fact that the legal question appellant seeks to raise may recur in the future does not defeat the defense of mootness. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 341 U.S. 901, 71 S.Ct. 613, 95 L.Ed. 1341, reversing 87 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 185 F„2d 426.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 F.2d 729, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 374, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kletzing-v-young-cadc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack