holding that unpublished provisions within an agency personnel manual may be “binding if so intended by the Commission” in question
How later courts described this case
- holding that unpublished provisions within an agency personnel manual may be “binding if so intended by the Commission” in question
- stating that the order “supplements but does not supersede any statutes, regulations, or collective bargaining agreements on the authorized use of Government office equipment”
- stating that the agency’s intent to be bound is the determinative factor
- remanding to district court to determine whether provision of Personnel Manual is binding because decision turns on "the Commission’s intent in authoring it, as ascertained by an examination of the provision's language, its context, and any available extrinsic evidence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBB, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
In my judgment the objective facts, independent of psychiatric opinions, required the conclusion that the appellant was not fit for continued employment in her position. I refer to the facts stated in n.25 and accompanying text of Judge Tamm’s opinion, and those summarized in the Bureau’s fitness-for-duty examination directive, quoted in n.4. Given those facts I cannot believe that the Bureau was required to keep the appellant in her position indefinitely, and it is difficult to think of another position which she might have filled. Nevertheless it does seem to me that the relevant Federal Personnel Manual provision, coupled with normal compassion, should have impelled the Bureau to consider extended leave without pay as an alternative to separation. Because the Bureau did not consider any alternative I concur in the remand.