Case Name: REYNOLDS et al. v. LOVETT, Secretary of National Defense et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1952-10-23
Citations: 201 F.2d 181
Docket Number: No. 10912
Parties: REYNOLDS et al. v. LOVETT, Secretary of National Defense et al.
Judges: Before CLARK, PRETTYMAN and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 201
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
REYNOLDS et al. v. LOVETT, Secretary of National Defense et al.
No. 10912.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 5, 1951.
Decided Oct. 23, 1952.
Writ of Certiorari Denied April 6, 1953.
See 73 S.Ct. 784.
Claude L. Dawson, Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Joseph Kovner, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. Holmes Baldridge, Mr. George Morris Fay, U. 'S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, Washington, D. C., and Edward H. Hickey, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees. William P. Arnold, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance in behalf of appellees. Charles M. Trelan, U. S. Atty. at the time of argument, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before CLARK, PRETTYMAN and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.
This case concerns the rights of civilian Government employees having veterans' preferences. Appellants were honorably discharged soldiers, employed at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and their records were rated good or better. A reduction in the number of employees at the Shipyard was made. Appellants were reduced in their positions and grades, while non-veterans in the same classifications were retained in their positions and grades. Appellee officials say that appellants were demoted because, in the judgment of the officers in charge of the Shipyard, they were not qualified for the supervisory nucleus, composed of the best craftsmen, each one carefully selected on the basis of his individual qualifications. They say that the non-veterans were deemed by them better qualified for supervisory positions than were the appellants. We think that appellees' view that when personnel is reduced the head of an agency may select employees to be retained in any classification on the basis of individual merit and without giving effect to Section 12 of the Veterans' Preference Act is erroneous.
The case is reversed and remanded for action in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
. 58 Stat. 390 (1944), as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. § 861.