Legal Document

341 U.S. 277 71 Supreme Court Reporter 685 95 L.Ed. 939 BRANNAN, Secretary of Agriculturev.ELDER et al. ELDER versus Agriculture. Nos. 473, 474. Argued April 11, 1951. Decided May 7, Motion for Leave to File Petition Rehearing Denied June 4, See 956, 1012. [Syllabus from pages 277-279 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Greene Chandler Furman, Robert D. Elder, pro se. Mr. Morton Liftin, Washington, D.C., Brannan. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion Court. 1 These actions involve questions concerning precise scope rights employment in federal service granted by Veterans' Preference Act 1944. 58 Statutes-at-Large 387, 5 United States Code KF62 (1946 ed.) § 851 seq., Annotated KF65 U5 seq. The ultimate issues are two: (1) whether under 12 veterans with temporary war-service appointments entitled retention preference over nonveterans equivalent classified civil status when reduction-in-force discharges made; and (2) reemployment lawfully discharged governed priorities or other provisions Act. 2 We treat these cases together, as did courts below, shall refer Elder Furman petitioners. Petitioners honorably such concededly whatever benefits affords. They were appointed associate attorneys Office Solicitor Department Agriculture July August 1943. At time their appointments, a regulation was effect which all be limited duration war plus six months, persons so not acquire (competitive) status. On 29, 1947, petitioners eighteen notified that, because reduction force compelled lack funds, they would separated on 30 following. Nonveteran retained. selection made basis retention-preference regulations—under 12—which plainly required that its given higher priority than without. 3 Plaintiffs appealed Commission, subsequently found separation accord statute regulations. Meanwhile, however, instituted District Columbia, alleging first had acquired status, hence regulations nonveterans; second, any event, gave an absolute regardless Commission contrary invalid. 4 While pending, came into additional several reached resigned voluntarily transferred. then rehired nine previously separated, whom took office October 27, 1947. Some lower possessed at separated. this ground, latter amended complaints before allege addition been deprived preferential right 'reemployment' 'reinstatement.' moved summary judgment, motion. appeal, Appeals affirmed judgment petitioners' lawful. But it allegations violation reinstatement well founded. court therefore reversed remanded directions leave deny facts alleged. 87 U.S.App.D.C. 117, 184 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series 219. From parties cross-filed petitions review. sought review carried out. deprivation stated cause action statute. certiorari obvious impact policies. 1951, 340 928, 496. For reasons outlined we agree full disagree holding complaint sufficient state unlawful reemployment. I. 6 As pointed out, there is no merit contention thus nonveterans.1 validity discharge, therefore, turns Commission's Regulations (Supp.1947) 20.3. adopted pursuant Act, 861, reads part follows: 7 'In personnel civilian agency, competing employees released accordance Civil Service give due tenure employment, military preference, length service, efficiency ratings: Provided, * That whose ratings 'good' better retained below nonpreference who have equal *.' (Emphasis added.) 8 define 'competing' employment. highest Group A, includes having those positions excepted examination requirements without limitation. B, second priority, months. Contract composed one year less. classify within each group veterans' ratings. Subgroups A—1, B—1 C—1 include both better. A 2, B—2 C—2 but preference. Under regulations, petitioners, employees, B—1, while some nonveteran A—2 classification (permanent employees) choice, since limit reach same group. 9 contend feature violates statute, proviso gives rating equivalent. proviso, like body 12, contains term necessarily implies veteran's operates only defined And does supply definition, must determine legislative history prior legislation definition may reasonably said 'carry provisions, intent, purpose (of statute)'. 868, 868. 10 This similar Hilton Sullivan, 1948, 334 323, 68 1020, 92 1416. decision case upheld insofar service. light pertinent 'no interpretation (§ 12) can fairly reached.' Id., page 336, 1026, Since 'length service' 'tenure employment' appear parallel terms argued if eliminates barrier also tenure. ignores crucial difference historical treatment two factors. Executive orders 1944 consistently disregarded giving tenure—a fact stressed case. 336—337, 1026—1027, hand, just distinguished groups tenure, confined early 1932, provided out inverse order permanent last.2 rule still passed. (Supp.1943) 12.304. 11 Moreover, barren indication long-established broken down subordinated In general, designed 'give sanction existing preference' strength' preference.3 Additional specifically brought Congress' attention. One stressed, example, third grants veteran agency replaced functions transferred another administrative body.4 interpretive discussion here involved, Commissioner Flemming 'simply continues what has practice throughout entire 1923.'5 More important, bills earlier proposed organizations plaintiffs claim case—absolute tenure.6 rejected favor enacted, language itself.7 sum, hardly called invalid making distinction reflect long-standing groups, issued statutory finally adopted, Congress indicated intent whatsoever new standard. Two further points remain. apart 1912, 37 413, 648, saving clause 18 867, 867. flaw argument, Its features applied, Orders, unclassified above, appointment never nonveterans. Alternatively, itself extends 851, 851. seems apparent specific all. section general statement policy, listing preferred specification covered. It provides 'preference given' certification appointment, reinstatement, retention; delineate be. details spelled subsequent sections being 12. Cf. supra. Section described merely 'defining granted.'8 13 consistent properly II. 14 wrongfully denied rehiring rests solely allegation reemployed register. concluded allegation, Secretary, held 'reinstatement re-employment' rights, measured D.C.Cir., 1950, 120, 219, 222. Neither holdings withstands analysis. indicated, except thought preserve, conjunction 18, arising executive 15 Nor able accept ruling references Reemployment preferences specially dealt elsewhere eligibles fault may—at request—have names placed appropriate registers lists qualified. 864, 864. eligibility reappointment §§ dealing general. 856, 857, 857. respective numerical ratings, augmented disabled veterans, wives, unmarried widows deceased veterans; eligibles. 852, 852. appointing officer pass nonveteran, he file writing his therefor, examine sufficiency. register, 10-point eligibles, three more list position filled. 16 There persuasive reason why applicable make twofold argument contrary: 'reinstatement' rather 'reemployment,' 2; applies competitive taking 1, Fed.Reg. 2839, 6.4. Even valid, help 'Reinstatement'—to extent peculiar meaning parlance passed—meant person upon formal request officer. 602, 9.1, 9.101 (1939).9 accorded might reinstated limit, whereas come specified periods after separation. nto formerly held. An involuntarily employee could authorized provide employee. analogue type contained eligible 'who dismissed furloughed' 'at officer'. 862, 862. interpret creating entirely 'reinstatement,' dependent Such stretch beyond intended scope, strike off books, ever use granted. 17 claim, covers clearly erroneous. name 'for every qualifications established, maintained project Government Their requested list. contain request. even so, violated failed follow procedures 8, Again, complaints. stand fatally defective respects, unless remand missing links proof, judgment. 19 part, proceedings conformity opinion. So ordered. 20 Affirmed directions. 21 BLACK dissents. Order 9063, February 16, 1942, times relevant, formulate special recruitment during war, '(p)ersons authority thereby civil-service but, discretion months thereafter.' (Cum.Supp.1943) 1091. March Board Legal Examiners, functioning attorney effected Order, 2201. 9230, 20, 6665, 1201, 1202. continued 17.1(g) Board's 17.1(g), remained when, 9358 1943, 9175, vested itself. No plausible advanced Minute 1932. Acts, Rules (as September 15, 1934) Page 54. Statement Representative Starnes, author bill, Hearings Senate Committee S. 1762 H.R. 4115, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. 8—9; Ramspeck, Chairman Committee, 90 Cong.Rec. 3505 (1944). Hearings, supra, note 9—10. additions see also, 3503; Rep. Number 907, 2—4; H.R.Rep. 1289, 3—4. 27. 5101, 76th 1st Sess.; 5147, 6. H.R.Rep.No.1289, 3; S.Rep.No.907, 3503. Part superseded wartime 18.8 former least year's 'may reappointed meets standards,' regard 18.8.

Classification Label: 1