Opinion

Katherine Cunningham v. The United States

  • 423 F.2d 1379
  • 191 Ct. Cl. 471
  • 1970 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 33
Court
United States Court of Claims
Filed
Apr 17, 1970
Status
Published
Author
Nichols
On the bench
Cowen, Laramore, Durfee, Davis, Collins, Skelton, Nichols
Cited by
30 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.9%

interpreting Veteran’s Preference Act and holding that employee’s resignation is involuntary in situation in which plaintiff timely submits request to withdraw resignation and is denied without any demonstrable exercise of discretion

How later courts described this case

  • interpreting Veteran’s Preference Act and holding that employee’s resignation is involuntary in situation in which plaintiff timely submits request to withdraw resignation and is denied without any demonstrable exercise of discretion
  • finding that “both the [Air Force] and the Civil Service Commission erred in denying plaintiffs procedural rights under the Veterans’ Preference Act”
  • holding plaintiff unlawfully separated because Air Force failed to exercise discretion in denying plaintiffs request to withdraw her resignation two weeks before its effective date
  • holding plaintiffs resignation involuntary where plaintiff timely submitted a request to withdraw her resignation and was denied without any demonstrable exercise of discretion

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Benton v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 781 (1984)

    It should also be added that Cunningham is factually distinguishable from this case in another way.
    United States Court of ClaimsDec 3, 1984Read it

The opinion

NICHOLS, Judge

(concurring):

I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court. As I said, concurring, in Cosby v. United States, 417 F.2d 1345, 1346 , 189 Ct.Cl. 528, 530 (1969):

******

If an employee’s continued presence in an agency is regarded as undesirable, and if he tenders any piece of paper purporting to be a resignation, the temptation is to snatch at it, thus avoiding the complex ritual and uncertain outcome of an adverse action. It is, I believe, the duty of the personnel officer nevertheless to scrutinize the paper with care, and to reject it as a resignation if it states, clearly or ambiguously, that the resignation is coerced. * * *

The same is true if the statement is made in a separate communication submitted by the employee simultaneously or at any time before the purported resignation takes effect.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.