Court Opinion

ID: 9466996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:35:12.506554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:05.666311
License: Public Domain

*204MacKINNON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur completely in the per curiam opinion but write so that silence will not be interpreted as full concurrence in the other concurring opinion. It has some potential for misunderstanding.
First of all the per curiam opinion is not restricted to “narrow limits.” It is a full holding that a suit seeking damages for alleged wrongful separation and alleged damaging misrepresentations cannot be considered under 22 U.S.C. § 1037a(l)(C) of the Foreign Service Act as a suit for “an allowance or other financial benefit [that] has been denied arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to applicable law or regulation.” That Schuler was “never an active officer or employee at the Department of State after the passage of the applicable provisions in the Foreign Service Act” is irrelevant to the court’s decision on this point. The result would have been the same if he had been a foreign service officer after the passage of the Act and made the same claim for damages that he makes here. The concurring opinion in one place seems to recognize this, when it states that it “is clear that claims of wrongful separation are not cognizable under the cited subsection (C) ,” but elsewhere it infers “[g]iven these facts,” i. e., that he was not an active officer or employee after the passage of the Act, that such fact enters into the holding. It does not.
Another potential ambiguity in the concurring opinion is its statement that “the decision in this case does not cover situations involving persons who were officers or employees of the Department of State at the time of the passage of the Foreign Service Act.” It does though if they seek to bring a suit such as Schuler brought. Of course, the present case does not involve such an officer or employee, and in that sense it does not cover them. But, the fact that the employment of a purported grievant pre-dated or post-dated the Foreign Service Act is a fact that is immaterial to the decision. One who was an officer or employee at the time of the passage of the Act cannot prevail in a suit as we have here under § 1037a(l)(C) any more than Schuler can. It is thus erroneous to infer that the rule announced in the decision, insofar as § 1037a(l)(C) is concerned, would not apply to officers or employees who were such after enactment of the Act.
In its next statement the concurring opinion deals with another subject by stating that officers and employees at the time of passage of the Act are not barred, because they may be perceived as “former officers or employees” following a disputed separation, from filing timely complaints against allegedly wrongful separations under another section of the Act, i. e., 22 U.S.C. 1037a(l)(B). The per curiam opinion, however, only involves 1037a(l)(C), not subsection (B) and nothing in the opinion suggests it does involve subsection (B). The comment is thus extraneous to this case.
Also, the concurring opinion is in error to the extent that it indicates or suggests that a “former officer or employee”, as distinguished from an “officer or employee” under the Act, has any rights under subsection (B) of § 1037a(l) to complain of wrongful separation. Insofar as he may be a “former officer or employee” under the Act he cannot sue in reliance on subsection (B). Subsection (B) only authorizes a “grievant” to complain and the applicable statutory definition of “grievant” limits it exclusively to “officers and employees” and specifically confines any “former officer or employee” to claims under subsections (C) and (D). The statute thereby excludes them from any right to proceed under subsection (B). Specifically, the definition provides:
(A) “grievant” shall mean any officer or employee of the Service who is a citizen of the United States; or for purposes of subparagraphs (C) and (D), a former officer or employee of the Service; or in the case of death of the officer or employee, a surviving spouse or dependent family member of the officer or employee;
22 U.S.C. § 1037a(l)(A) (Emphasis added).
The “purpose” clause of the Foreign Service Act also refers only to “officers and employees.”
*205It is the purpose of this part to provide officers and employees of the Service and their survivors a grievance procedure to insure a full measure of due process, and to provide for the just consideration and resolution of grievances of such officers, employees, and survivors.
22 U.S.C. § 1037, 89 Stat. 765. (Emphasis added). Thus the inclusion of “former officers and employees in subsection (C) and (D) are an exception to the general rule and under established law such terms are to be narrowly construed. There is nothing in the case that calls for the dicta in the concurring opinion.