# Richard L. Schlegel v. The United States

> United States Court of Claims · October 17, 1969 · 416 F.2d 1372

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454936

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard L. SCHLEGEL v. the UNITED STATES
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** October 17, 1969
- **Citations:** 416 F.2d 1372; 189 Ct. Cl. 30; 1969 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 72
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Davis
- **Judges:** Cowen, Iaramore, Durfee, Davis, Collins, Skelton, Nichols
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454936

## Opinion text

DAVIS, Judge
(concurring):
I join in the result, and fully in all of the opinion except Part II. As for that portion, I agree with most of what the court says but, in the light of the discus *1382 sion in Norton v. Macy, 417 F.2d 1161 (D.C. Cir. No. 21, 625, decided July 1, 1969), I would confine our present holding to the particular circumstances of this case. The significant factors here are: (a) the nature of plaintiff’s conduct, which was explicit and overt and (at least as to one charge) appears to have violated the criminal law of Hawaii (see Sec. 768-71 — sodomy); (b) the recency and repeated nature of that conduct, and plaintiff’s defense of it (thus indicating that he would continue in that course); (e) the security requirements of plaintiff’s office and position (in that connection it is not irrelevant that plaintiff’s acts were committed with military personnel) 1 ; and (d) the testimony that retention of plaintiff would negatively affect the operation of the office. These factors were not present in Norton , as the District of Columbia Circuit saw that case.
. In the Norton case, the court said (p. 10, slip opinion): “The homosexual conduct of an employee might hear on the efficiency of the service in a number of ways. Because of the potential for blackmail, it might jeopardize the security of classified communications.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454936. Public record. Not legal advice.