The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above-captioned matter, having come on to be heard on plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunction, and the Court having heard the
testimony of the witnesses, having examined the exhibits introduced into
evidence, having reviewed the parties' agreed Statement of Uncontested
Facts, does hereby enter the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1. This action was commenced by plaintiff, Louciene Watson, on August
15, 1983, to redress alleged violations of the Civil Service Reform Act,
5 U.S.C. § 2301, 2302, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 1985, 1986, the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
1348 and 42 U.S.C. § 3601 and 3617. Defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss disputing jurisdiction.
3. All defendants are sued in their official capacities; in addition,
plaintiff seeks monetary damages against defendants Tardy, Cummings and
Ray in their individual capacities for claimed violations of his
4. For approximately 10 years, plaintiff has held the position of
Regional Director of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ("FH & EO") in
the Chicago Regional Office of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Region V.
5. By letter dated June 1, 1983, plaintiff was notified that he was to
be transferred to the position of Regional Director, Debt Management Unit
in Seattle, Washington effective July 10, 1988, at the same grade (GS-15)
6. On or about June 7, 1983, plaintiff was detailed out of his position
as Regional Director of FH and EO and into the position of Special
Assistant to the Regional Administrator, Region V, for the period of June
6, 1983 through July 9, 1988.
7. On June 13, 1983, plaintiff wrote a letter to defendant Tardy
regarding his reassignment and requested certain information relative
thereto. In that letter, plaintiff requested that his transfer be
rescinded on the grounds of his lack of experience in the Debt Management
area and the hardship to himself and his family resulting from the
relocation to Seattle. Plaintiff also requested that, in addition to
rescission of the transfer, he be reinstated to his former position as
Regional Director of FH & EO.
8. Also on June 13, 1983, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Office
of the Special Counsel ("OSC"), Merit Systems Protection Board, an
independent body whose purpose is to investigate and recommend action on
federal employees' claims of, inter alia, prohibited personnel practices
under 5 U.S.C. § 2301, 2302. Plaintiff's handwritten complaint on a
form supplied by the OSC, alleged that his transfer was effected in
retaliation for testimony given by him against James Cummings, former
Regional Administrator, Chicago Regional Office, in the course of an
investigation conducted by the OSC.
9. Plaintiff and other employees of HUD were interviewed and gave
testimony before an Administrative Law Judge of the Merit Systems
Protection Board regarding the case of Special Counsel v. HUD which arose
out of allegations by two HUD employees that Cummings, while Regional
Administrator for Region V, improperly transferred them. Specifically,
plaintiff testified that Cummings told him in a private conversation that
he was going to "get" the two employees.
10. As a result of the foregoing proceeding before the MSPB, Cummings
was transferred from Region V to Washington, D.C. as Director, Office of
11. In April of 1983, the ALJ rendered his decision favorable to
Cummings and generally discounting the credibility of plaintiff's
12. Since he came forward with his testimony and since the issuance of
the ALJ's decision in favor of defendant Cummings, plaintiff has heard
persistent rumors from various employees of HUD that Cummings is "out to
get" him and that he was to be ...