Court Opinion

ID: 9444764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:11:03.599542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:59.588986
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
The Performance Rating Act of 1950 requires that an employee be given a 90-day warning and opportunity to improve before he is rated unsatisfactory and removed.1 Congress did not expressly limit or qualify these requirements. Under our holding today, however, the employing agency may, in dismissing an employee, avoid the requirements of the 1950 Act by proceeding under the 1912 Lloyd-LaFollette Act2 which authorizes a more summary dismissal. Since the Performance Rating Act is the more recent law, and affords additional protection to federal employees, I would be unwilling to infer that Congress intended such a result without express language to that effect. But I think this effect is approved by our recent decision, in Jones v. Hobby,3 that the Performance Rating Act does “not directly or by implication modify or supersede authority to demote personnel on charges” under pre-existing law and regulations. Though Jones involved a demotion, I find no basis for giving the Act a different effect with respect to removals. For that reason, I concur in the result here.

. 64 Stat. 1099 (1950), 5 U.S.C. § 2005.

. 37 Stat. 555 (1912), as amended, 62 Stat. 355 (1948), 5 U.S.C. § 652.

. 96 U.S.App.D.C. -, 223 F.2d 345.