Document: 359 U.S. 535 79 S.Ct. 968 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 William Vincent VITARELLI, Pettio nerv.Fred A. SEATON, Secretary of the Interior, et al. No. 101. Argued April 1 and 2, 1959. Decided June 1, Mr. Clifford J. Hynning, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John G. Laughlin, Jr., respondents. Justice HARLAN delivered opinion Court. This case concerns legality petitioner's discharge as an employee Department Interior. Vitarelli, educator holding a doctor's degree from Columbia University, was appointed in 1952 by Interior Education Training Specialist Trust Territory Pacific Islands, at Koror Palau District, mandated area which this country has responsibility. 2 By letter dated March 30, 1954, respondent Secretary's predecessor office notified petitioner his suspension duty without pay, effective assigning ground therefor various charges. Essentially, charges were that 1941 to 1945 had been 'sympathetic association' with three named persons alleged have members or sympathetic association Communist Party, concealed Government true extent these associations time previous inquiry into them; he registered supporter American Labor Party New York City 1945, subscribed USSR Information Bulletin, purchased copies Daily Worker Masses; because such activities tended show 'not reliable trustworthy' continued employment might be 'contrary best interests national security.' Petitioner filed written answer statement charges, appeared before security hearing board on 22 July 1954. At no evidence adduced support nor did any witness testify against testified length, presented four witnesses, witnesses extensively cross-examined officer board. On September notice dismissal 10, sent over signature Secretary, reciting 'in interest reasons specifically set forth 1954.' followed 21, filing 'Notification Personnel Action' setting action. The record does not copy document ever 4 After having failed obtain reinstatement demand upon suit United States District Court seeking declaration illegal ineffective injunction requiring reinstatement. October 1956, while pending Court, new Action,' it 'a revision replaces original bearing same date,' another shortly thereafter. notification identical one already mentioned, except omitted reference reason authority under carried out.1 Thereafter granted summary judgment respondent. That affirmed Appeals, judge dissenting. 102 U.S.App.D.C. 316, 253 F.2d 338. We certiorari consider validity discharge. 358 871, 110, 103. 5 both relied Exec. Order 10450, 18 Fed.Reg. 2489 (1953), U.S.C.A. § 631 note, Act August 26. 1950, 64 Stat. 476, U.S.C. 22—1 seq., 2738, all relating discharges government employees loyalty grounds, dismissal. In Cole v. Young, 351 536, 76 861, 100 L.Ed. 1396, held statute referred apply positions designated 'sentitive.' Respondent takes position since service sensitive effect Cole, decided after 1954 petitioner, render also inapplicable proceedings had. It is urged state affairs who concededly within protection Civil Service Act, 632 Veterans' Preference 851 other rights employees, who, 'Schedule A' employee, could summarily discharged giving reason, circumstances entitled more than received—namely, 'expunging' therefor. 6 misconceives our decision Cole. 26, Executive alter power status, reason. Nor Department's own regulations preclude course. Since, however, gratuitously give security, obligated conform procedural standards formulated 2738 grounds. Dulles, 354 363, 77 1152, 1403. its face applies including Schedule A employees. Young established permit nonsensitive pursuant procedures authorized if those would virtue pre-existing regulation. cannot, justify noncompliance promulgated him departmental Order, afford greater protections stated reasons. Having chosen proceed here, Service, bound himself dealing cases, even though summarily. 7 makes contentions constitutional invalidity provided 2738. He further urges assuming governing procedures, cannot stand given comply Order. find unnecessary reach issues, we think second well taken must sustained. 8 Preliminarily, should said departures egu lations matters kind involve mere consideration irregularities. For nature, ordinary rules do apply, involving disclosure confidential information are withheld, where recognized counsel practical constraints making objections tactical handling cause being tried court law trained judges, scrupulous observance safeguards clearly particular importance.2 instance examination record, transcript board, discloses applicable violated least material respects terminated final 9 First, 15(a) requires served grounds 'shall specific detailed considerations, need sources information, * shall subject amendment 30 days issuance.' Although furnished appears reasonably specific,3 establishes statement, never amended, conceivably fact 'security considerations permit.' questioned great detail concerning knowledge organizations nowhere mentioned charges,4 length Bucks County, Pennsylvania, elsewhere completely silent. These questions presumably asked they deemed relevant very thus spread conclusive indication considerations' justified omission them 10 Second, §§ 21(a) (e) require hearings boards 'orderly' 'reasonable restrictions still imposed relevancy, competency, materiality considered.' margin, transcript, illustrative rather exhaustive, shows ndi spensable indicia meaningful observed.5 over-characterization say proceeded developed wideranging inquisition man's educational, social, political beliefs, encompassing question whether religious man.' Third, 21(c)(4) gives right 'to cross-examine offered charges.' apparent over-all reading contemplated provision call expected rest gathered 'confidential informants.' think, 21(c) (4) contemplate calling informant properly classifiable 'confidential,' used assessing employee's status.6 occasion hearing, identified name person apparently considered detrimental negating possible inference informant' whose identity necessary keep secret, some supplied source affording cross- examine.7 11 Because attendant fell substantially short requirements regulations, hold effect. 12 invalid, events validly dismissed when omitting statute, order, regulation discharges, him. Granting reasons, independently view delivery exercise power. Rather, '9—21—54,' contained termination date '9—10—54,' revision' notification, evidently indicates sole purpose attempt moot brought play.8 circumstances, now treating 1956 action, plainly intended grant relief connection form discharge, removal petitioner.9 13 follows what seeks, subject, course lawful hereafter dismiss 14 Reversed. 15 FRANKFURTER, whom CLARK, WHITTAKER STEWART join, concurring part dissenting part. 16 An executive agency rigorously professes action judged. See Securities & Exchange Commission Chenery Corp., 318 80, 87—88, 63 454, 459, 87 626. Accordingly, based defined procedure, generous beyond bind agency, procedure scrupulously observed. judicially evolved rule administrative firmly and, I may add, rightly so. sword perish sword. Therefore, unreservedly join Court's main conclusion, attempted Vitarelli abortive invoked but 17 But draws freedom vests it, judiciary deny curtail freedom. untrammelled out hand, protected rights. so freely private employer collective bargaining contract. law-imposed self-imposed restriction discharging Vitarelli's hearing. And is, take dismissing Vitarelli? there inserted personnel records place first notice. Another proceeding. mention If, instead sending telephoned convey contents notice, said: 'I note you contesting want make clear you. If succeed before, dismissyou , retroactively, 19 disallows significance finds controlling meaning suggestion expunging adverse comment, signified reassertion effectiveness so, concludes, intention severance legally found expressed doubt effective. piece paper dialectic. process, manifestation intendment sure, resting valid authority—the Though pre-date rested unsustainable ground, deprived accured during two years unlawful prior wrongful deprive fire prospectively. intent manifested did, however expressed—here, rid Vitarelli—the frustrate rightful 1956. wished accomplish mean accomplished nothing. 20 To construe administratively nothing attribute diarist, corrector entries archieves. wholly disregards actualities conduct concerned terminating services undesired whatever means accomplished. summons unfettered says him: 'You longer employed here fired last week,' can escape conclusion error effectively week, employer's manifests present belief foreverafter dismissed? Certainly end. Of special formal required bring about relationship, cf. Felter Southern Co., 326, 847, 854, non-compliance formality come being. requisite 21 common sense it: Vitarelli: 'This tells ifs, ands, buts, along presently Department.' Since successfully concludes employed. unreal interpretation attributes governmental empty confetti throwing. affidavit custodian Commission, together revised states 'That expunged findings made respect 10450.' As noted, permissibility adjudication information' disclosed employee. substance page 971, supra. only persons, 'F_ _, W_ _.' During officer, 'How know L_ _ B_ _? Did meet H_ C_ remember meeting J_ L% 6d _?' Further, relationships wide variety Thus asked: 'Do Black Mountain Transcendentalism is? Do recall organization National Council Soviet-American Friendship? How Conference Human Welfare? What called Joint Antifascist Refugee Committee? Have contact Negro Youth Congress? Abraham Lincoln Brigade? heard magazine 'Cooperative Union'? wondering Consumers Union?' 'Mr. Armstrong (the inquiring teacher Georgia college): Where designed put white colored races? your feelings race equality? civil rights? enter discussion seminar groups?' Armstrong: interpret correctly maybe Negroes Jews denied their present? Yes. way? saw South certain jobs open people Negroes. university, quota College medical students. Jewish, many. thought wrong. 'Chairman Towson: Doctor, isn't quotas classifications well? don't that. true. words, wasn't Gentiles Jews? remembered seemed feel, felt, too, time, persecuted somewhat. trouble investigate just accept word? No, didn't it. You accepted word general group professors associated taught. am simply asking verify vague impression puts severe residents City, race, creed color be. Otherwise students City. There few others, mostly Isn't system college order available live City? believe exclusion resident color? way policy stated. Is fact? Excuse me, Armstrong. went Law School certainly long ago. All right, getting afield.' following hearing: indicated reply interrogatory times voted sponsored principles Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Norman Thomas, Henry Wallace? many vote (Thomas) care say? Thomas? platform coincide nearly ideas democracy? two, strong advocate Nations. Are still? file indicates, quite hepped up world idea time; right?' Witnesses as: 'The Doctor acquainted talked NormanTho mas occasions. that? Dr. scholarly? good administrator? Was careless language around careful? man? extremist equality worked about, either projects educational extend population country? contacts groups, instructors, students, on?' how above retention consistent security. supported 21(e) provides 'if handicapped nondisclosure lack opportunity informants, consideration,' implying nonconfidential informants provide criticized 'bourgeois' purchase house woman associate Georgia. flatly remark attributed him, spirit levity. took courts below defect articulation 'national security' therefor, void such, gave maximum possibly entitled. Respondent's brief refers 'corrective taken,' 'relief voluntarily accorded (petitioner).' premise essentially rests—that retroactively'—thus contrary

Category: 2