Wilfred Handler v. Secretary of Labor

D.C. Circuit

Wilfred Handler v. Secretary of Labor

379 F.2d 88

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 1967

Docket20219_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 379 F.2d 88 (Wilfred Handler v. Secretary of Labor) 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

Wilfred Handler v. Secretary of Labor, 379 F.2d 88 (D.C. Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Cutting directly to the heart of this appellant’s contentions, we find that the Department of Labor in good faith had reached a managerial decision to decentralize its Division of Financial Investigations. This appellant had been employed as a financial investigator in that Division. As the services to be rendered in various area field offices required the reassignment of financial investigators, the appellant in due course was directed to report for duty in the Detroit, Michigan, area field office. He refused to accept that assignment. At no time has he reported for work at Detroit, and instead has contended that he unlawfully had been denied the right to work in Washington.

We find no basis upon which we may go behind the action of the Department of Labor. Certainly, despite the appellant’s insistence, it is not open to us to subject the Secretary to examination in respect of the decision he had reached. United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941). Since there was a rational basis for the appellant’s separation from service and we are not persuaded that the appellant had been *89 denied procedural rights, we are bound to affirm the judgment of the District Court. Courts will be most reluctant to disturb agency action where, as here, the record discloses an adequate basis for the result reached. See, e. g., Studemeyer v. Macy, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 321 F.2d 386, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 337, 11 L.Ed.2d 265, 61 S.Ct. 999, 85 L.Ed. 1429 (1963).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Cutting directly to the heart of this appellant’s contentions, we find that the Department of Labor in good faith had reached a managerial decision to decentralize its Division of Financial Investigations. This appellant had been employed as a financial investigator in that Division. As the services to be rendered in various area field offices required the reassignment of financial investigators, the appellant in due course was directed to report for duty in the Detroit, Michigan, area field office. He refused to accept that assignment. At no time has he reported for work at Detroit, and instead has contended that he unlawfully had been denied the right to work in Washington.

We find no basis upon which we may go behind the action of the Department of Labor. Certainly, despite the appellant’s insistence, it is not open to us to subject the Secretary to examination in respect of the decision he had reached. United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941). Since there was a rational basis for the appellant’s separation from service and we are not persuaded that the appellant had been *89 denied procedural rights, we are bound to affirm the judgment of the District Court. Courts will be most reluctant to disturb agency action where, as here, the record discloses an adequate basis for the result reached. See, e. g., Studemeyer v. Macy, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 321 F.2d 386, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 337, 11 L.Ed.2d 265, 61 S.Ct. 999, 85 L.Ed. 1429 (1963).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 F.2d 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilfred-handler-v-secretary-of-labor-cadc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack