Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Richard L. Windsor v. The Tennessean
726 F.2d 277
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1984-01-23
- Topic
- general
ORDER A majority of the court having not voted in favor of an en banc rehearing, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the hearing panel for disposition. The court notes two arguments in the petition that have not previously been raised. The government contends that this courts’ opinion, reported at 719 F.2d 155, is inconsistent with the following decisions: Bush v. Lucas, - U.S. -103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983); Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Braun v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Richard L. Windsor v. The Tennessean. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 11 opinions
WINDSOR v. THE TENNESSEAN,726 F.2d 277(6th Cir. 1984)
RICHARD L. WINDSOR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE TENNESSEAN, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 81-5668.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 23, 1984.
Before EDWARDS and CONTIE, Circuit Judges, and MOYNAHAN, Chief District Judge.fn*
[1] ORDER
[2] A majority of the court having not voted in favor of anenbancrehearing, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the hearing panel for disposition.
[3] The court notes two arguments in the petition that have not previously been raised. The government contends that this courts' opinion, reported at719 F.2d 155, is inconsistent with the following decisions:Bush v. Lucas,___ U.S. ___,103 S.Ct. 2404,76 L.Ed.2d 648(1983);Brown v. General ServicesAdministration,425 U.S. 820,96 S.Ct. 1961,48 L.Ed.2d 402(1976);Braun v. United States,707 F.2d 922(6th Cir. 1983). Those cases held that where Congress has provided federal employees with elaborate civil service or statutory remedies, the courts should be loathe to create additional remedies.
[4] This court's opinion does not conflict with that rule, however, because Windsor was not a civil service employee who could take advantage of the comprehensive system of civil service remedies. Nor was a statutory remedy available.
[5] Secondly, the government's brief in support of its petition exaggerates when it states that the effect of this court's decision is "that any federal employee who is dissatisfied with a firing, demotion, or an adverse performance evaluation is free to bring a suit for damages against the responsible supervisor . . ." (brief at 14). This argument ignores the fact that civil service employees will not be able to bring suit under § 1985(1) because such employees are relegated to their administrative remedies. Furthermore, non-civil service employees must be able to demonstrate a conspiracy intentionally to defame before this court's opinion can form the basis for recovery.
[6] Accordingly, the petition for rehearing hereby is DENIED.
- The Honorable Bernard T. Moynahan, Jr., Chief District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. ↩