Court Opinion

ID: 9448231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:26:45.95715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:20.251543
License: Public Domain

REED, Justice
(Retired), sitting by designation (dissenting).
My view of the effect on this litigation of that portion of the national security legislation that provides for the allowance of compensation for wrongful discharge to any employee restored to duty after dismissal for security reasons 3 is contrary to that of the court.
That provision differs markedly from one that it supersedes in that the older statute specifically provides for compensation on reinstatement to the one discharged “at the rate received on the date of such removal or suspension * * * and shall for all purposes except the accumulation of leave be deemed to have *918rendered service during such period.” 4 [Emphasis supplied.] Such a change, particularly after the earlier statute was specifically called to the attention of the committees in charge of the bill, is significant.5
Not only is the change significant, but the language of the presently applicable payment proviso of the act seems to me to require adjustment for accumulated leave. The reinstated employee, wrongfully deprived of his place, is to be made whole by payment of the difference between what he would have normally “earned [in Government] during the period of such suspension or termination, at the rate he was receiving * * * and the interim net earnings of such person.” 64 Stat. 477.
His normal government earnings were his annual salary plus his four weeks leave calculated at the same rate daily, weekly, monthly or annually as the basic pay. The court opinion, of course, concedes that plaintiff “could have taken four weeks of leave each year without any diminution in his annual pay.” From this it seems to me to follow that the “amount such person would normally have earned during the period of suspension or termination” is his salary plus the value of his annual leave. The United States has recognized by its legislation that the privilege of leave has a definite value. Title 5, § 61g(6) 6, defining the amounts to be paid the representatives of deceased employees, provides that the term “unpaid compensation” shall include:
“payment for all accumulated and current accrued annual or vacation leave equal to the compensation the decedent would have received had he lived and remained in the service until the expiration of the period of such annual or vacation leave; * * *»
From the amount which would have been earned in Government is to be deducted his earnings during the period of his governmental suspension or termination, including the value of any leave taken or authorized at his outside employment. In no other way can he be made whole for the admitted though unintentional wrong done him by the Government.
*919Is not the Government’s position inconsistent? It admits on the one hand that plaintiff is entitled to the amount of leave which he could have accumulated had he been employed by the Government during the period of his discharge. On the other hand it argues that he is not entitled to be credited for the value of any leave whatsoever. If plaintiff is entitled to be credited for any leave at all, he should receive the full amount. There is no warrant in the statute now in controversy for limiting the amount by the leave he could have accumulated.
I think that Hynning v. United States, 141 Ct.Cl. 486, was properly decided and would find for the plaintiff and direct the case be submitted to the Commission■er under Rule 38 of the Court of Claims, 28 U.S.C.A. to find for plaintiff on a balance of the accounts.
Dollars will not salve the wounds of this victim of administrative error but the Government’s statute of atonement should not be narrowly construed to restrict his indemnification to the lowest reasonable dollar figure. Evidently from the language of the authorization for payment, the purpose was to make the vindicated civil servant whole. This re- ■ quires, payment, in my judgment, for the loss of leave. I hardly think that Mr. Zeiger can be said to have been on “vacation” during the period between dis•charge and reinstatement.

. The act provides in pertinent part: “Provided further, That any person whose employment is so suspended or terminated under the authority of this Act may, in the discretion of the agency head concerned, be reinstated or restored to duty, and if so reinstated or restored shall be allowed compensation for all or any part of the period of such suspension or termination in an amount not to exceed the difference between the amount such person would normally have earned during the period of such suspension or termination, at the rate he was receiving on the date of suspension or termination, as appropriate, and the interim net earnings of such person: * * 64 Stat. 477.

. 62 Stat. 355. The whole of the relevant section, § 6(b) (1), roads:
“Any person removed or suspended without pay under subsection (a) who, after filing a written answer to the charges as provided under such subsection or after any further appeal to proper authority after receipt of an adverse decision on the answer, is reinstated or restored to duty on the ground that such removal or suspension was unjustified or unwarranted, shall be paid compensation at the rate received on the date of such removal or suspension, for the period for which ho received no compensation with respect to the position from which he was removed or suspended, less any amounts earned by him through other employment during such period, and shall for all purposes except the accumulation of leave be deemed to have rendered service during such period. A decision with respect to any appeal to proper authority under this paragraph shall be made at the earliest practicable date.”

. The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission said: “Since Congress, in enacting Public Law 623, approved June 24 [10], 1948 (62 Stat. 354), recognized the need to compensate employees who are restored to duty after a period of unjustified removal or suspension from duty without pay for the whole of the period of such separation, it is the opinion of the Commission that the same mandatory provisions for back pay should be extended to employees who are cleared of charges of conduct considered to be detrimental to the interests and security of the United States and who are restored to employment as a result of such clearance.”
This letter was set forth in both the House and Senate reports. S.Rep. No. 2158, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 6; H.R.Rep. No. 2330, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 7, U.S.Code Cong.Service 1950, p. 3283.

. 72 Stat. 1761.
5 U.S.C.A. § 61(b) provides in part that: “The lump-sum payment herein authorized [for accumulated leave on separation from Government] shall not be regarded, except for purposes of taxation, as salary or compensation and shall not be subject to retirement deductions.” [67 Stat. 138]. It is arguable that this lends *919support to the court’s position; I think that it was not intended to define the amounts to be paid under the statute in controversy.