Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WATSON v. U.S. DEPT. OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

September 9, 1983

LOUCIENE WATSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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 constitutional rights.

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) and pay.

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 Voluntary Compliance.

11. In April of 1983, the ALJ rendered his decision favorable to Cummings and generally discounting the credibility of plaintiff's testimony.

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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.