# Katherine Cunningham v. The United States

> United States Court of Claims · April 17, 1970 · 423 F.2d 1379

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455454

## Case

- **Full name:** Katherine CUNNINGHAM v. the UNITED STATES
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** April 17, 1970
- **Citations:** 423 F.2d 1379; 191 Ct. Cl. 471; 1970 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 33
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nichols
- **Judges:** Cowen, Laramore, Durfee, Davis, Collins, Skelton, Nichols
- **Cited by:** 30 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/9455454

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- finding abuse of discretion in denial of plaintiff’s request to withdraw her resignation two weeks prior to its effective date

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455454. Public record. Not legal advice.