Chedister
Opinion of the Court
"This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Upon consideration of defendant’s motion, plaintiff’s response thereto, defendant’s reply, and all supporting affidavits and exhibits, the court finds that there are disputed issues of material fact which preclude disposition of this case by summary judgment.
"it is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and that this case is remanded to the Trial Judge with instructions as follows:
"(1) The Trial Judge shall hear evidence and determine the validity of the reduction-in-force (RIF), including plaintiffs allegation that this was no bona fide RIF at all but merely a subterfuge by which plaintiffs job was re-advertised as a new position and his contention that this new position was awarded to a personal friend of plaintiffs supervisor.
"(2) The Trial Judge shall also address the issue whether plaintiff was, in fact, qualified to retreat into the GS-12 position which he claims was arbitrarily and capriciously denied by the ARB’s reversal of the AEO’s decision. The facts on record, including Mr. Edman’s
"(3) The Trial Judge shall further hear evidence and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law on such other issues deemed relevant.”
Bennett, Judge, dissents and would grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
These allegations, if proved, could support a conclusion that the personnel action here involved bad faith and was therefore arbitrary and capricious. We note that plaintiffs burden, on the merits, is substantial and that plaintiffs ultimate
Mr. Edman was, during the period in question, Acting Chief, Career Service Division, CSC.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.