# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Walker v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_0987%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1968 - **Citation:** 389 U.S. 1036 ## Text ie LIBRARY ~ | 7. FILED” SUPREME COURT.U.5 - ——i«-.- GT 19 1967 JOHN F, DAMS, OLERK | | aod | IN THE 7 ~ _ Rupee Court of the Mniten States October Term 1967 — vo mde ’ GEORGE A. WALKER, 7? . Petitioner, Vv. : e THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. PETITION FORAWRITOFCERTIORARI ——~TO THE UNITED STATES COURTOF CLAIMS ~——- Lawrence J. Simmons | ... 934 Shoreham Building, 806 15th Street, N:W.,-_—_-__—_—_—— Washington, D. C. 20005 - NA 8-3996 — Counsel for Petitioner A | e . Pe ee * . : ; . : ; . . aw : : ’ ? * _ ° ; : e 3: ' ¢. : a ; 7 - e : . ey : : ; ‘ my fe > ; ; 7 ’ ; . . e : : ho ee « | 2 vs 3 . Fe eS eter ae : 7 = rT ‘ F \ s \ a e g jane ee —— 7 fe ————— . . - ” ° sy ar . . Be gas ° : a . . Poa ‘ a . " ‘4 . * - . . - : e ° $ ‘ . P é bd , ’ ° a) ; ’ a 68 ‘ ‘ ‘ o ... .% ~~~. ‘CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, RULES OF COURT AND REGULATIONS i ds he ees | STATEMENT OF THE S CASE. + . ee REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT . L Dismigal of Petitioner from His Federal Employment Was Void Being in Violation t | of the Veterans Preference: Act, 5 U.S.C. 863, in Two Respects: _ (a) There Was No Adequate Proof of the 8. _ Charges and of Intent to Commit a — _ -Frayd and Name of Co-Conspirator Was not Provided, and (b) His Appeal to the Civil Service Com- mission Was Timely when Taken _ within a Reasonable Time after Recovering from a Mental seiicane oe _Il. A Federal Employee heli a Notice of Proposed Removal from Employment *. Has a First Amendment Right to Include His Petition for Redress of Grievances and 10: - 2 °: a Failure by the Government to Meaning- ' fully Process It Is a subtle Interference —~_ : - with a Constitutional Right Voiding that — . : Employee’ 8 Removal from Employment. - CONCLUSION. | Opinion of United States Court of Claims, - 3” filed April 14, 1967 - Order of United States Court of Claims _ Denying Motion for Reconsideration, | Entered July 20,1967. ...... oa | _ CITATIONS : : ; Bates v. Ci ry of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 80S. Ct.412.°. 2... Carter v. United States, —~ . - 102 U.S. App. D.C. 227, 252 F.2d 608. .. oy: Gernand v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 936 ee Oe era ee ee ' Gmo. Niehaus & Co., et al., v. United States, 373 F.2d 944... eater ee es New York Times v. Sullivan, _ 376 U.S. 254, 84S.Ct. 710: .. 2... . Page 21 A-1 | 21 15 16 18 &, 19 Rogers v. United States, cee oe sere 340 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct, 438 . 2... 16 ‘Swaaley v. United States, : Court. of Claims, No. 405-65, decided May 12, 1967... . 2. 9,11,18,19 Turner v. Keuele , | cs Se . 118 U.S. App. D.C: 104, ae erat Makes 332 F.2d 304. 6 2 ee ee +, 119,20 Urbina v. . United States,’ Court:of Claims, No. 113-63, 2 | : decided May 12, aicute Lb sce eck eae 6, ee Constitutional Provisions arid Statutes Involved - o Amendment I to the Constitution of the. ae 2 Mal o- Uelted States os ewe ene eC 8 Amendment V to the Constitution of the . United States = - 6 ee ee ee on ae “Gees 14 of the Veterans Preference. Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 387, as amended 4 a istars ee arn ee eae a 3. PR ww: > > dv) a Regulations * Civil Service Commission Regulations, el 5 CFR ‘752.203 (a) and (bX(1) 2... se S-CFR 752.203 (3)). 60. 2 fe ee 5 CFR "752.203 (4). Ce deo hee wwe - Federal Personnel Manual, Appendix Om to Section 5, Procedures Under. | pe SO ere ee eee ae ae ee Rules of the United States Court of Claims, Section 14 of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 287 as amended 5 U.S.C. 863: , -”No permanent or indefinite preference eligible, **** shall be discharged, *** except for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service ‘and for reasons _ given in writing *** such preference eligible shall be allowed a reasonable time for answering the same per- | sonally and in writing, *** and shall have the right to appeal to the Civil Servicé Commission from.an adverse decision of the administrative officer so acting, such _ «appeal to be made in writing within a reasonable length _ of time after the date of receipt of ngfice of such ad- verse decision:**”. Civil Service Commission Regulations: — Y & 5 CFR 752. 203: (a). Right of Appeal. An employee is entitled to. _ appeal to the [Civil Service] Commission from an_ad- _ verse action covered py this subpart en's “(b). Time Limit. (1) *** an employee may submit an appeal at 7 time after receipt of the notice of 0 adverse decision but not later than 10 days after the ad- ” verse action has been effected.” a *€2). %#%H?? “(3(i). An appeal may not be processed concurrently by the Commission under this part and by an agency under the agency appeals system established under Part: 771 of this Chapter”. =. = **(4). The Commission may extend the time limits in this paragraph when the appellant shows that he was not otherwise aware of it, or that he was prevented by cir- cumstanees beyond his control from yee within the time limit”. Federal Personnel Manual, Appendix C to Section 5, - Procedures under Part 22, Sec. A.2: “The notice must ' state any and all reasons supporting the proposed actidn, — specifically and in detail (names, times, places, etc. ). The reasons must be given specifically enough, and in sufficient detail, that the employee may understand clearly the alleged grounds for the proposed action, know the particular offenses or deficiencies charged . - against him, and thus be in a position to > submit his de-. ; fense. BREE? ; . Rules of the United States Court of Claims: “19(b). Affirmative atdanent In inion’ to a preced- ing pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord _and satisfaction; duress, estoppel, failure of considera- tion, fraud, illegality, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of limitations; waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense”. “64(d). M@tion and Proceedings Thereon: After a mo- tion for summary judgment has been filed *** and has been served *** and after expiration of the time allowed *** for filing a response there to, such motion *** shall wt be olnida to the calendar. The judgment sought shall . be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, Pe any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the — party is entitled toa a judgment as a matter of law”. | STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioner, a veterans preference eligible, was working in _1961 as a civilian employee for the Air Force as an Administra- . tive Assistant, GS—9, at the 6313th Air Base —— Kadena, Air Force Base, Okinawa. (R13). By letter of August 31, 1961 he was notified of the pro- posal to remove him from his civil service position. This letter charged him with conspiring to defraud the United States by conniving practice to purposely circumvent government regula- tions for personal financial gain. (R 23-25). It did not name his co-conspirator nor state that the name was unknown. The fraud charged was that he applied for and received excessive quarters allowance in that he was reimbursed for rent he never paid, that in fact he owned his home though titled in the. maiden - name of his Japanese wife. (R 23, 24). Petitioner answered in writing denying the fraud, stated he paid $80. 00 a month rent to Noyo Yamakawa, the maiden name of his Japanese wife, be- cause on June 1, 1960, he had created a written trust and con- veyed the house into the trust, naming his wife Trustee with his daughter the beneficiary. (R 23, 24, 26). He also advised in effect that under Japanese law in Okinawa it was customary to place title in the maiden name of the wife. (R 23). In this an- _ swer to the charges he asked for an investigation stating his re-” moval was occasioned by an upheavel within the Command _ Qnd the result of-an earlier attempt to remove him “which had no substance and never materialized”. (R 26, 27). On October 6 cy o \ 16, 1961 he was notified in writing a decision had been made . - _ to remove him effective upon his arrival at his residence in the United States (R. 28) that being December 21, 1961. (R 51). He was advised of his appeal rights, either to the higher echelon of the Air Force under the Grievance and Ap- peal Procedures or to the Civil Service Commission (R 28), but that he could not pursue both (R 3r). Regulations of the : ' Civil Service Commission, 5 CFR 752.203 (b)(3)(i) preclides _ an appeal to the Commission if the employee files an agency grievance appeal. Petitioner filed neither appeal then. He | _ filed appeals to the Civil’Service Commission in 1964. Between the date of arrival at his United ‘States residence, December 21, 1961, and June 14, 1962, he remained there ill. (R-40). Because of a suicide attempt he was hospitalized on June .14, 1962, as a mental patient in the Westborough -State Hospital, Westborough, Massachusetts. (R65). Mas- sachusetts’ law does not permit hospitals to provide copies of _ medical records without supoena (R64) but it did ‘provide a short diagnostic summary (R 65, 66), which states Petitioner has an “Involutional Psychotic Reaction, Depréssive Reaction, + * _ manifested by depression, retardation, | feelings « of despair and hopelessness in the involutional age”. He remained there until transferred to the Veterans Administration Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts on January aS, 1963, where he remained-until . discharged February 5, 1964. (R67). His diagnosis at this Veterans’ hospital was “Involutional Psychotic Depressive Reaction in partial remission” at discharge. AR 68).« The Veterans Administration continded on Defmber 12,- 1963, that he was totally disabled and waived the premiums _ for his National Service Life Insurance and finding also such ' total disability continued from November 14, 1961. (R 72). The Civilian Personnel Officer in. Okinawa stated (but not under oath) that he had talked with Lt. Col. Wm. Hannum, . id " USAMSG, on October 31, 1961,-who had concluded Petitioner ¢ .was capable of a mature evaluation of the facts and had the capacity to comprehend the importance of ‘the action“taken. (R 89). On March 22, 1964, about a aii and a half after discharge from the Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts, Petitioner appealed in writing to the San Francisco Region, Civil Service Commission (R38, 39, 40) stating the medical reasons why he had not appealed earlier but also p ating these grievances (R 39): “The change was totally unjust and was inspired by a political wrangle between the Commander of the Unit to which I was assigned and his deputy. Because _ofqny loyalty to the Commander the Deputy avowed on more than one oceasion that he was going to get me after-he had succeeded in getting the Commander. Being of a lesser rank he could not make a frontal_.- — attack but did through a whispering and underhandéd attack. Once-the Commander was removed. he worked ‘to get me removed and when the question of transfer of my house to my. wife as trustee for the benefit of my daughter was made and this was later questioned - he had the base to construe this as something sinister: When I realized that I was being ganged upon through — a whispering and fictional group, I became alarmed, highly nervous and since the charges were so slow in — coming it sapped my morale completely so that when the charges were made I was a nervous wreck and unable to present a timely and proper defense.” ° This appeal was denied as untimely on April 2, 1964 (R 41- : }).. That office also stated Dr. Hannum’s medical opinion . , refuted Petitioner’s claim of illness since he was competent _ according to the doctor. (R 42). That office was cognizant of the Veterans Administration conclusion Petitioner was __ ‘totally disabled from November 14, 1961 (R 43) but chose to disregard this expert evidence for the hearsay medical con- clusion as reported by a layman, the Civilian Personnel ° Officer. 7 | a: “4 “On April 22; 1964, Petitioner filed an appeal with the - Board of Appeals and Review, Upited States Civil Service Commission, Washington, D.C. (R44-49) in which he reiterated his past illnesses and stated these grievances (R 44-49): “In the organization to ‘which J was assigned-was a_ woman employee who. became _my subordinate and who had tried to get the job to which I was assigned but. failed for lack of qualifications. This woman at the outset and throughout my tenure of the job conspiréd with the military superiors to discredit me . in order to get my job. The writer is 1/20th colored. and this fact was suspected and used by this woman to spread rumors and hate among assigned personnel. This’continued with each succeeding officer so that at various times it was proposed to abolish my job, reduce my grade and other harassing tactics used. When a new Commander was assigned the same process was used over and. over. Then in 1960 a new deputy to the Commander was assigned and it soon became ap- _ parent that they did not see eye:to eye. I was loyal. to the Commander as required by my -job and this Major was from Little Rock, Arkansas, so this woman quickly sought to appeal to his aversion to a person of » ¢olor. Because of his dissention (sic) with. the Com- “ . mander the organization suffered and-in 1960 an IG annual inspection of the organization was. severely cii- tical. The deputy tried to place‘the blame for the . . poor showing of the organization on me since because of rank he could not blame the-Commander, a Lt. Colonel. Finally, through political and fraternal asso- _ ciation he succeeded in having the Commander relieved of his post and avowcd to get me.’ This appeal was denied May 4, — as untimely (R 51). On _ May 11, 1964 (R 52) and June 22, 1964 (R 54):reconside ration 4 was requested but denied. (R 54). Plaintiff filed his com- -plaint in the Court of Claims July 1, 1965, nn jurisdic- tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1491. There’ was no hearing below upon oa merits but Respon- ‘_ dent’s Motion for Summary Judgment was ‘granted April 14, 1967. (R 96, 97). The lower court concluded Petitioner was - caught in this dilemna: If the court upheld the holding of the Civil Service Commission that Petitioner’s illnéss was not an acceptable excuse then the untimely appeals (sic)! consti- tuted a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but if the court excuséd the tardiness of-the appeals and accepted the existence of the illness as debiljgating then he"could not | recover because of his failure to be ready, willing and able to work for the period involved. (R 97). ‘This affirmative de- _ fense of “ready, willing and able”, was not affirmatively pleaded as Rule 19 of the lower court requires. On May 10, 1967, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration stating this contention and also filed a Supplemént on June 2, 1967, calling attention to two subsequent opinions of that court which were, he believed, inconsistent with the holdings in his case. Swaaley v. United States, No. 405-65, decided May 12, 1967, and Urbina v. United States, No. 113- -63, decided May 12, 1967. Both are unreported. Swaaley involved the vacating of a removal from federal employment because the employee’s letter constituted a Petition for Redress of Grievances and . could not be the subject of a removal proceeding. Urbina involved a situation very similar to Petitioner’s case since it, — | But the Agency said he eodkld : not appeal ones the Coma Pro- cedure if he went to the Civil Service Commission and.Civil Service regulations preclude him from appealing to it if he followed the Agency grievance appeals. Both violate the Veterans Preference Act which give _ the eligible an absolute right to appeal to the rgrenci See — ment I infra. + 10° too, was concerned with alleged fraud in claiming rental allow- ances for a house titled inthe name of Urbina’s brother-in-law. " Petitiorier’s Motion for Reconsideration was a July 20, 1967 (R. 115, 116). REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT | The Court of Claims failed to decide the timeliness of _ Petitioner’s administrative appeals in the light of the Veterans - Preferencé Act. allowing a preference eligible to appeal to the Civil Service Commission within a reasonable time. Under — _ the circumstatces of this case Petitioner did appeal within ~ a reasonable time after recovering from a mental psychosis. His removal violated the Veterans Preference Act. He was © . charg&d with intent to defraud but there was no proof of thi this since he obtained rental allowances properly Shaving pre- viously conveyed title:to his home in good faith to his wife, as trustee for his daughter. He actually paid rent tothe =~ ' trustee. These issues were decided by the court below 7 upon a motion for summary judgment and since issues of fact existed summary judgment was precluded. Important . questions of federal law, the Veterans Preference Act, exist and apply to a large number of veterans employed in the civil service of the United States. It is believed that, this question of ‘federal law ~* not been but should be settled — by this Court. ; "The court below failéd to consider Petitioner's letters to his Agency and to the Civil Service Commission Regiorial Office and to its Board of Appeals and Review as Petitions for Redress of Grievances encompassed by Amendment I to ° the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Claims has held that a federal.employee may file such a petition and that it cannot be hindered or delayed nor used as a basis for removal unless the statements made in it are made with € ll knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard, of their falsity. Swaaley v. United States, No. 405-65, decided May 12, 1967. This is in direct conflict. with the holding of the majority of the United. States‘Court of Appeals for the Distifet of Columbia Circuit.in Turner v. Kennedy, 118 U.S. App. D.C. 104, 332 F.2d 304 (1964). The facts are found in ‘Judge Féty’s dissenting opinion in which he held that the ' employee’s letter to Congress was protected hy the First Amendment and by 5 U.S.C. Section 652(d) which provides that federal employees may petition Congress and that the __ petition shall not be denied or interfered with. Turner was removed hetause his statements were said to be false, unjusti- fied and reprehensible. Both Swaaley and Turner involved: dismissals based on.the statements contained in the petitions 8 being false or slanderous. Petitioner’s grievance was not used, so far as is known, as a reason for dismissal but there was a ~- subtle stifling of it since there was a failure to forward it to | higher headquarters for action, failure to notify him of what action was taken on it and whether it was found to baseless or not. This constitutes a delay, interference.or hindrance to - his Constitutional rights. This is an important question of Constitutional law which i is in conflict between two United ~ States Courts and which has not as but ome be, settled . by thie Court. 12 DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER FROM HIS FEDERAL EM- PLOYMENT WAS VOID BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE. _ VETERANS PREFERENCE ACT, § U.S.C. 863, IN TWO *, RESPECTS: a a : (a). There Was No Adequate Proof of the Charges and of Intent to Commit a Fraud and Name of Co-Conspirator Was not Provided, and (b) His Appeal te the Civil Service Commission Was Timely when Taken within a Reason- - able Time after Recovering from a Mental ncaa ah ~ * — Section 14 of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944, 58 2 Stat. 387, as amended 5 U.S.C. 863, endows preference " __ eligibles. with a bundle of rights, powers, privileges and-im- _ munities. Among these are the right to be advised in x: _ writing, prior to removal of the reasons therefore and the ° right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission within a reasonable time. That Section of the Act reads in parts:. ‘‘No permanent or indefinite preference eligible, #*** shall-be discharged, *** except for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service and for reasons given in writipg; &** such preference. eli- gible *** shall have the right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission from an adverse decision of the administrative officer so-acting, *** within a reason- able length of time after the date of a of ‘notice of such adverse decision: ****.” The Civil Service Commission requires the eat not later than 10 days ‘after the adverse action, 5 CFR 752. 203 * ‘ -(b)(1) but the 10 days perida may be extended if ‘the indivi- dual .was not aware of the decision or was prevented by cir- cumstances beyond his control from appealing within the time limit, 5 CFR 752.203(4). - ~~, - © + 7 . Petitioner’s removal was effective December 21, 1961; the _ 2 date of his return from Okinawa to his residence-in the & United States. “(R 28, 51). The history and diagnosis of his mental illness have not been controverted for the period. . involved here. From December 21, 1961 to June 14, 1962, _ he remained at home ill. (R 40). Because of an attempt at suicide he-was confined as a mental patient on. June 14, 1962, _in the Westborough. State. Hospital, Westborough, Massachu- ° ot setts (R 65). That hospital is not permitted to release medical? — records except upoh subpoena (R 64),. but it did te- - lease Petitioner’s diagnosis and brief history. Its diagnosis was : Petitioner was suffering from “Involutional, Psych¢ti¢ Reaction, Depressive Reaction, manifested by depression, retardation, — feelings of despairand hopelessness in the involutional age” 7 ~— and that this illness dated “back to about 9 months ' o” (R 65). On January 15, 1963, he was removed tor the 3 Vetere “Administration Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts, which on January 15, 1963 stated (R 69): “This 59- year-old ihulatto NSC male hss : a history. _ of moderate depression dating back to childhood .. when his family life was broken due to the death of his parents followed by a struggle for an education in - which he ultimately succeeded. His present illness, however, began in Japan when he married a native girl while a civilian employee of the Af Force.” And this diagnosis was provided (R 68): \:: “Involutional Psychotic Depressive Reaction in partial remission.’ ‘ Thus, both. hospitals sae in substantial agreement that © ‘ Petitioner was psychotic during the critical periods involved. Theré is some hearsay upon hearsay statement, not under oath, that the Personnel Officer in Okinawa checked’ with Lt. Col. Wm. Hannum, USAMSG, on October 31, 1961, who . 4 ee he é / - related that he concluded Petitioner was capable of maturely evaluating facts and had tne capacity to comprehend the . importance of the actions taken. (R 89). There is nothing to show the ‘doctor’s qualifications or whether he is a psychia- — . trist, whether if ever he examined Petitioner and if so for how long, and no facts are revelaed showing how the doctor arrived at his diagnostic, conclusions. An opportunity to cross- examine the doctor was not provided nor does it do s00 that Petitioner knew of this medical opinion. . The Veterans Hospital discharged Petitioner February 5, 1964 (R 67). On March 22, 1964, he appealed’ -his removal _to the San Francisco Region, Civil Service Commission, setting’ forth his mental depression: (R/ 39, 40). That Office réplied April 2, 1964, denying the-appeal as untimely (R 41) stating. _- as to the illness that it relied. on Dr. Hannum’s conclusion in * — _ Okinawa that Petitioner was competent. (R 42). That Re- gional’ Office, however, knew of the conclusion of the Veterans Administration that Petitioner, was totally disabled: since - November 21, 1961 (R: 43), but chose to ignore this Govern- | ~ mental Agency’s medical diagnosis. Petitioner on April 8, 1964 appealed to the Board of Appeals and Review of the Civil Service Commission which denied the appeal May 4, 1964 as untimely but further stated about the disability (R 51): “The Board of Appeals and Review has given care- ful consideration to the entire record in your case, in- " cluding the fact that you have been awarded total disability by the Veterans Administration. However, the very fact that you, of someone in your behalf, =» ‘initiated the action with the Veterans Administration *.Jeads the Board to the-assumption that a timely appeal could also have been am to the Civil Service - Commission.” [But the Veterans iduiinistration itself, through its contact representative at the Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts, submit his defense.****.” . ' Petitioner was charged with conspiracy which required two actors. It is true that in criminal law the name of the co-conspirator need not be given. Rogers. v. United States, 71 S.Ct. 438, 443, 340 U.S. 367, 375. The . Federal Personnel Manual, as noted ‘above, does require that the name be given and the removal procedure was void for that reason alone. | After Petitioner’s case the lower court decided Urbina v. _ United States, No. 113-63, May 12, 1967, as yet unreported. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration invited the court’s wa 17 attention to this case (R 108). which voided Urbina’s rémoval. Urbina was accused of making a could not be used as grounds for removal, unless such state- ments were made with knowledge they: were false or with reckless disregard of their falsity relying on the libel principle. -— in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Swaaley, - however, appears to be in conflict with the 240 1 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Coluim- bia Circuit in Turner v. Kennedy, 118 U.S. App. D.C. 104,332 F.2d 304 (1964), Judge F ahy*dissenting. The majority did not render an opinion but the facts were stated by Judge Fahy. Here a federal employee was held properly discharged for alleged false statementsfade to Congress. Judge Fahy dis- sented contending that such statements were privileged since they were made under the protection of the First Amendment right of Petition for Redress ‘of Grievances and by 5 U.S.C. 652(d), 62. Stat. 356 (1948) giving federal employees the right to petition Congress. which right shall not be denied or inter- . fered with. - A conflict therefore exists between two Courts of the - United States which Petitioner believes this Court Should. settle. - Here, Petitioner’s statements were not slanderous, but were made with good intentions and with a belief that they were true. In response to the proposal advising of intent to remove him he asked for an investigation calling attention to the fact that the charges arose out of conditions at his place of employment and that there had been another attempt to remove him that had no substance and never materialized. In his letter to the San Francisco Region, Civil Service Com- mission, he said that he had been ganged upon through a whiper- ing group and because of a political wrangle in his unit. He became specific in his letter to the Civil Service Commission (R 45, 46, 47) more fully related under Statement of the Gase but which-in short stated: - ae iar 20 « “In the organization to which I was assigned was a , woman employee who became my subordinate and . who had tried to get the job to which I was assigned - but failed for lack of qualifications. This woman at -....the_outset and throughout my tenure of the job conspired with the military superiors to discredit me in order to get my-job. The writer is 1/20th colored and this fact was suspected and used by this woman to spread rumors and hate among assigned personnel. This continued with each succeeding officer so that at various times it was proposed to abolish my job, reduce my grade and other harassing tactics used. When a new Commander was assigned the same proc- ess was used over dnd over. Then in 1960 a new deputy to the Commander was assigned and it soon became apparent that they did not see eye. to eye. I was loyal to the Commander as required by my job and this major was from Little Rock, Arkansas so this woman. quickly sought to appeal to his aversion to a person with color. Becatise of his dissention (sic) with the Commander the organization suffered and in 1960 an IG annual inspection of the organization was severely critical. The deputy tried to place the blame for the poor showing of the organization on me since because of rank he could not blame the Commander, a Lt. Colonel. Finally through political and fraternal - ‘associations he succeeded in having the Commander relieved of his post and avowed to get me.” The statements in all three of his petitions have never been controverted by the Government and on summary judgment. must be taken as true. Turner v. Kennedy, supra, dissent, : 332 F.2d pp. 304-305. Here, Petitioner’s first statement of grievances was before. his removal and in answer to the charges. Whatever happened ‘to his letter of grievances has never come to light and whether it was a contributing factor for his discharge cannot be deter- mined without a hearing on the merits. This petition and the EP LAA AIL tht te SAAR te ck 21 two forwarded to the Civil Service Commission required some meaningful processing and a mere receiving of it without any _ transmittal to proper effective authorities is a governmental stifling of a fundamental right. Compare Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516,'523, 80 S.Ct. 412. ‘ This removal is void becayse of violation of Petitioner’s | right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. _ CONCLUSION __y For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner prays that a Writ of Certiorari-issue to review the erroneous. and unfair judgment of the United States Court of Claims. Respectfully’ submitted, _ LAWRENCE J. SIMMONS 934 Shoreham Building 806-15th Street, N.W. ae Washington, D.C. 20005 Counsel for Petitioner Qo --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_0987%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.