Court of Claims, 1964

Kempinski v. United States

Court of Claims · Decided January 24, 1964 · Davis, Durfee, Laramore, Ones, Whitaker

164 Ct. Cl. 451; 1964 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51; 1964 WL 8678

Counsel

Thomas A. Ziebarth for plaintiff. Garl L. Shipley, Shipley, ATcerman <& Pichett, and Sarrmel Besnicoff were on the briefs., Jay J. Levit, with whom was Assistant Attorney General John W. Douglas, for defendant.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Hayes v. United States (Court of Claims 1990)
Griffin v. United States (Court of Claims 1978)
Carter v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2021)
Cooley v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2007)
Anderson v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2006)
James Hayes, Jr. v. United States Postal Service and the United States of America (5th Cir. 1988)
McGee v. United States (Court of Claims 1984)
Dunn v. United States Department of Agriculture (Court of Claims 1981)
Shaller v. United States (Court of Claims 1973)
Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. United States (3d Cir. 1967)
Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. United States (Court of Claims 1967)
Campbell (Court of Claims 1966)
Serbin (Court of Claims 1964)

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 of the Court

Per Curiam :

Plaintiff sues for his salary as a distribution clerk in the Post Office Department, on the ground that his removal therefrom was ordered by an official of the department without authority to do so. He also sues on an alleged promise by the United States that an employee submitting a suggestion for the improvement of the service, which was adopted, would be compensated therefor. The case is before us on cross-motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiff is estopped to assert the first ground of his petition by the decisions of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 189 F. Supp. 877 *453(I960), and, on appeal, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 292 F. 2d 820 (1961), on his petition for an injunction against the continuation in force of the order of removal of him, on the ground that the order of removal was signed by an unauthorized official of the department, the same ground asserted here. Both courts held against plaintiff. Plaintiff is estopped to relitigate the issue in this court. Edgar v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 9, 171 F. Supp. 243 (1959); Larsen v. United States, 145 Ct. 01. 178, 170 F. Supp. 806 (1959),; Green v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 628, 172 F. Supp. 679 (1959).

Nor is plaintiff entitled to recover on the second count of his petition, wherein he sues for compensation for suggestions made for the improvement of the postal service. The Government Employees Incentive Awards Act, 68 Stat. 1112 (1954), as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§2121-2123 (1958), and the [Regulations issued pursuant thereto, 5 C.F.R. §§ 32.201-32.202 (1961), clearly vest the head of the department with discretion concerning the payment of compensation for any suggestion 'adopted. He might pay it or not, as he might consider the merits of the suggestion and other factors. Besides, this suggestion was rejected, and the file relating to it has been destroyed.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment is denied. The petition is dismissed.

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