Court Opinion

ID: 9447821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:45:20.980854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:12.279533
License: Public Domain

DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
It has become certain that my colleagues and I do not read the materials at hand in quite the same way. I find myself unable to decide whether or not certain payments to the appellant, over and above his normal salary, constituted “bonus payments” as the appellee argues, or “adjustments.” One of appellant’s exhibits indicates that such payments “have always been considered as additional compensation for services during the particular year for which they have been granted and have always been included in our salary records and so reported for tax purposes.” Since controversy developed, the appellee has denominated such payments as “bonus.” If they are not bonus payments, such “adjustments” became an important factor in computing the appellant’s average annual salary. The difference to appellant amounts to $270 per year. This element of the case, it would seem, presents a genuine issue as to which a record should be made, and I would reverse to permit a proper showing upon this aspect.
My colleagues’ conclusion that the “adjustments” were “not at any time considered part” of the appellant’s salary can be reached, as I see it, only by aceept*427anee of appellee’s claim on that score. Appellant has challenged that construction, offering to establish his position by evidence of “circular notices by defendant to all employees, including plaintiff, correspondence, memoranda, and oral communications.” I think the case is not ripe for summary judgment. Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., 1944, 321 U.S. 620, 627, 64 S.Ct. 724, 88 L.Ed. 967; Goldman v. Summerfield, 1954, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 209, 214 F.2d 858.