U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1959

William G. Rich, Jr. v. Honorable James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided November 27, 1959 · Edgerton, Miller, Fahy

273 F.2d 78; 106 U.S. App. D.C. 343; 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3011 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Byron N. Scott, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. William E. Mullin, Attorney, Department of Justice, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Geo. S. Leonard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Alan S. Rosenthal, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Morton Hollander and Samuel D. Slade, Attorneys, Department of Justice, also entered appearances for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Denis E. Cosby v. The United States (Court of Claims 1969)
Thomas v. District of Columbia Department of Labor (D.C. 1979)
Robert L. Molinar v. Western Electric Company (1st Cir. 1976)
Perlman v. United States (Court of Claims 1974)
Motto v. General Services Administration of the United States (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1971)
Harris v. Nixon (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1971)
Glynn H. Goodman v. United States of America (D.C. Cir. 1970)
Patrick F. X. McGucken v. The United States (Court of Claims 1969)
Anthony C. Autera v. The United States (Court of Claims 1968)
Haine v. Googe (District Court, S.D. New York 1965)
Ernest Paroczay v. Luther H. Hodges, Individually and as Secretary of Commerce of the United States (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Walsh v. City of Chicago (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1989)
Margaret J. Schultz v. United States Navy (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Paroczay v. Hodges (District Court, District of Columbia 1963)
Popham v. United States (Court of Claims 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a former employee of the Department of Labor, sued the Secretary of Labor for reinstatement. His complaint, in the light of accompanying affidavits, comes only to this: The Director of Personnel notified appellant that unless he resigned within three days, the Department would bring certain charges against him proposing his dismissal, and these charges might lead to fine or imprisonment. The Director told appellant he could resign on any ground he chose and his resignation would be accepted. He was “frightened and upset”. He therefore resigned “To enter private Industry.” He tried, and was not allowed, to withdraw his resignation. He describes the Director’s statement as “threats and duress” and says he was “falsely accused”. But he does not allege that the Director knew or believed that the proposed charges were false.

The Director did not act illegally or improperly in telling appellant he could choose between facing charges and resigning. We agree with the District Court that the appellee was entitled to summary judgment. Competello v. Jones, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 412, 267 F.2d 689.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.