Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Brannan v. Elder Elder — Opinion of the Court

We disagree with the holding that the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state an unlawful deprivation of a preferential right to reemployment.
As the Court of Appeals pointed out, there is no merit in petitioners' contention that they had acquired a classified civil service status and were thus entitled under the regulations to retention preference over all nonveterans. [1] The validity of petitioners' discharge, therefore, turns on the validity of the Commission's retention-preference regulations.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Brannan v. Elder Elder — Opinion of the Court

The Secretary had no other choice, since the regulations group employees by tenure and limit the reach of veterans' preference to competing employees of the same group.
Petitioners contend that this feature violates the statute, that the proviso of § 12 plainly gives veterans with an efficiency rating of 'good' or better an absolute preference over all other employees, with or without classified status or its equivalent. But the proviso, like the body of § 12, contains the term 'competing' employees, which necessarily implies that a veteran's preference operates only within a defined group.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Brannan v. Elder Elder — Opinion of the Court

An involuntarily separated employee could be reinstated in any part of the service, and the Commission was authorized to provide for similar reinstatement of any classified status employee. The apparent analogue of this type of reemployment is contained in § 13 of the 1944 Act, which provides that any preference eligible 'who has resigned or who has been dismissed or furloughed' may be appointed to any position for which he is eligible 'at the request of any appointing officer'.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature