# Jane Doe v. Robert E. Hampton, Individually and as Chairman, U. S. Civil Service Commission

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · November 3, 1977 · 566 F.2d 265

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464314

## Case

- **Full name:** Jane DOE, Appellant, v. Robert E. HAMPTON, Individually and as Chairman, U. S. Civil Service Commission, Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** November 3, 1977
- **Citations:** 566 F.2d 265; 184 U.S. App. D.C. 373
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Robb
- **Judges:** III, Tamm, Robinson, Robb
- **Cited by:** 144 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/9464314

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that unpublished provisions within an agency personnel manual may be “binding if so intended by the Commission” in question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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464314. Public record. Not legal advice.