Court Opinion

ID: 9478313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:45:42.617859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:21.401855
License: Public Domain

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm the Board’s decision.
The question is whether the backpay to which the petitioner is entitled covers the period from October 1, 1981 to November 16, 1981. The Board found that the petitioner should have been appointed to the temporary position to which Mr. Lott received a one-year appointment effective November 16, 1981. If the petitioner rather than Mr. Lott had been appointed, as the Board held he should have been, the petitioner would have been paid only for the year in which he served in that position, which began on November 16, 1981, and he would not have been paid for the period October 1, 1981 to November 16, 1981.
The fact that the petitioner improperly was denied that position is no reason to pay him more than he would have received if he initially had been appointed to the position. “The injured party is to be placed, as near as may be, in the situation he would have occupied if the wrong had not been committed.” Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730, 733 n. 3 (Fed.Cir.1984) (quoting Wicker v. Hoppock, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 94, 99, 18 L.Ed. 752 (1867)). He should not be placed in a better position.
The Board’s decision constituted a reasonable exercise of its broad discretion to determine the appropriate remedy.