Clifford L. Norton v. John MacY

change consider Court remand the circumstances, we

parties’ case to it.22

Remanded. NORTON, Appellant, L.

Cliffоrd Appellees. al., et John MACY No. 21625. Appeals States United Columbia Circuit. District Argued Jan. July Decided Rehearing Denied Petition 20, 1969. Oct. Tamm, Judge, dissented. guard- significantly, and, perhaps See 28 U.S.C. § inal reported the court ian litem ad property personal at all. no he discovered

review of his for “immoral possessing personality conduct” and for traits render him for “unsuitable employment.” further As a Government preference eligible, could be veterans he only for as will “such cause ^dismissed ''promote of the service.” sug- Since the reсord before us does gest any reasonable connection between the evidence effi- him and the cieney service, we conclude

unlawfully discharged. was he

I grew Appellant’s dismissal out of his arrest for a traffic violation. In early morning 22, 1963, he October driving vicinity was his car in Lafayette pulled Square. He th'e over to curb, picked up one Madison Monroe Procter, drove him once around Square, dropped and him off starting point. The two men then drove separate Squad off in cars. Two Morals having sequence officers, observed this Grаves, Mr. R. with Whom Mr. Glenn events, gave chase, traveling speeds Washington, Karr, C.,D. was John W. up per park to miles hour. brief, appellant. for ing lot of Southwest Wash Greilsheimer, Atty„ De Mr. James G. ington apartment building, told Procter Justice, partment of the bar leg police appellant his had felt York, pro Supreme hac Court of New during Lafayette their brief circuit of ap vice, court, by special for leave Square ap and had then him to invited . Atty. pellees L. Edwin Asst. Gen. pellant’s apartment for a The of drink. filed, Weisl, brief Jr. at the time the was ficеrs arrested both men took them Bress, Atty., at David U. S. Messrs. G. “to Morals a traffic Office issue Q. filed, Prank the time the Nebeker, was brief violation notice.” Atty. time at the Asst. U. S. Pending issuance traffic sum- Eldridge filed, C. the brief was John mons, police interrogated appellant Attys., Kopp, Department E. and Robert concerning Procter two hours brief, Justice, appel were on the evening and their activities Johnson, S. A. Asst. U. lees. Mr. Julius Meanwhile, pursuant sexual histories. appearance ap Atty., also entered an arrangement, to an of the Mor- head pellees. Security Squad telephoned als Judge, BAZELON, Chief Before Fugler, the scene Chief arrived on who TAMM, Judges. WRIGHT last a. in time to hear the 3:00 m. interrogation. Fugler was then Judge: BAZELON, Chief shown the officers’ arrest confidential budget Appellant, permitted former in- GS-14 record cognito to monitor and was analyst interrogation ap- Aeronautics National a 20-minute (NASA), pellant especially seeks Space Administration held for his benefit. (1964), recodified in 5 2. The leaves § 1. 5 U.S.C. record unclear whether 7512(a) (Supp.1965-68). were before or after Procter’s § arrested U.S.C. statement. steadfastly Throughout, appellant denied conduct.” It also determined Fug- advance he had made a homosexual basis his own admissions ler, subsequently clarified, ap- even as to Procter. pellant possesses of character and “traits given his traffic last, At personality which render [him] Fugler him- then identified summons. unsuitable for further em- Government appellant him down and invited to self ployment.” Appeals A Civil Ex- Service There, in a second- to for a talk. NASA Appeals aminer and the and Board “Tempo L” floor offiсe of the deserted ap- upheld Review these conclusions. building, Fugler colleague inter- a and pellant's reinstatement, action for rogated a. m. Dur- him until after 6:00 granted appellee’s District Court motion alleged- interrogation, ing appellant this summary judgment. for engaged in mu- ly he conceded that had males in other tual masturbation with college, high he some- that school and II desires experienced homosexual times Congress provided pro that has drinking, he rare occasions that on while tected civil servants shall not dis- bе undergone temporary af- a blackout had except missed “for such as cause drinking, occa- that on two such and ter will} promote the of the service.”/ suspected en- he he sions regula The Civil Service Commission’s gaged activ- of homosexual some sort provide appointee may tions that an exper- ity. he had said that He also removed, alia, inter for “infamous Procter, he met a ienced blackout when * * *, notoriously immoral, or recalling only he invited that had graceful “any conduct”3 and for up a man fоr drink. disqualification other which makes reply to a Subsequently, in his formal individual for the service.” We unfit dismissal, appellant proposed notice of appellant think —and does not strenuous homo- specifically was a that he denied ly deny the evidence was suffi —that ad- sexual, he made an indecent that had charge that, cient to con sustain the Procter, he had know- that to and vance sciously not, or he made a homosexual ingly ac- engaged in homosexual Accordingly, advance to Procter. Procter, during tivity life. his adult question presented is whether such however, in a written state- confirmed advance, appellant’s personality or traits gave police story he ment-the record, as disclosed are “such “it that and stated

time of his arrest re cause” for removal as the statute to be able idiot would take an quires. figure [appellant] wanted he that he said on me.” Procter have sex act The Fifth Circuit Court appellant before that had never seen Appeals recently a refused to consider night. substantive attack on dismissal аppellant private conduct, apparently did that concluded believing authority on it re advance that had no make a homosexual fact act amounted a Civil de this view merits Service October disgraceful “immoral, indecent, and termination of unfitness.5 The courts (1968). discharge. 731.201(b) be the basis That conten § 3. 5 C.F.R. accepted by tion is not. this See Court. 731.201(g) (1968). 4. 5 § C.F.R. Hargett Summerfield, U.S.App. v. (5 Anonymous D.C. 243 F.2d 29 v. only Although Hargett 1968). : The Court said 398 F.2d at 318. Cir. * * * argue Summerfield bar to eschews absolute Counsel judicial length, great with considerable of a mer- review its, language approaches ability, сonstitute it contains homosexual acts Thus, altogether upon part em- it of such such bar. is not acts thought ployees, the ef- clear whether the Fifth do not affect argu- ficiency service, authority should not it had no to consider recognized employ- consistently apply true, tions to those have, even whose it is enjoys unprotected by dis- statute.11 wide ment status the Commission determining Pref- what reasons And such as Veterans’ statutes cretion in employee;6 ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍designed plainly con- justify of a federal erence Act were removаl job security not en- this discretion fer some additional it is also clear but joyed by employees. unprotected ob- federal The Government’s unlimited. is not closely process recently re- ligation sets in a due As we observed to accord context, its limits on lated minimal substantive employees: prerogative to dismiss requirement “cause” that there be arbi- are dismissals which forbids higher discharge imposes duties trary capricious.7 constitu- These Government-as-employer than where, greater limits tional abstaining merely from violation “badge imposes here, a the dismissal requirement rights, a constitutional 8 from infamy,” disqualifying the victim gives content no substantive that employment, dam- * * Federal further *.12 the statute private employ, aging prospects for his pre Accordingly, this court has stigma fixing upon of an him the viously the merits a examined of character.9 official defamation involving statutorily protected missal a deeper cut also Process Clause Due off-duty charged employee homo with discretion where into the Government’s cases, sexual conduct.13 other upon an intrusion a dismissal involves that, complying recognized besides privacy area of that ill-defined requirements, statutory procedural with indistinctly recognized increasingly as if employer must demonstrate specific constitu- of several a foundation for its conclusion some “rational basis” protections.10 tional Whatever promote ef a “will scope, process ficiency limita- precise ulti- these due “The service.”14 thought presented 474, 1400, Elroy, or whether it 3 L. ments only 360 79 S.Ct. U.S. particular (1959). raised matters Ed.2d 1377 agency discretiоn. fell within the area of See, g., Stanley Georgia, e. U.S. v. 394 Macy, U.S.App. g., 557, 1243, E. v. 129 Meehan 89 S.Ct. 22 L.Ed.2d 542 822, 217, (1969) ; Connecticut, eases 392 F.2d 830 and v. U. D.C. Griswold 381 part, (1968), 1678, 479, vacated in cited in n. 20 S. 14 L.Ed.2d 510 85 S.Ct. Warden, Penitentiary (1965); v. U.S.App.D.C. (May 12, 1969) (era Md. banc) ; Hayden, 294, 301, Hargett Summerfield, U.S.App.D.C. 387 U.S. 87 S.Ct. v. 100 (1967). 1642, 85, 29, 32, L.Ed.2d See also denied, 18 782 243 cert. F.2d 353 U.S. Boyd States, 616, 970, 1060, 6 (1957) v. United 116 U.S. 77 1 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1137 (1886); 524, 29 L.Ed. Olms S.Ct. 746 and cases cited therein. 438, States, v. tead United 471- 277 U.S. Higher 564, (dissent 485, 7. Slochower Board of v. Education. 48 S.Ct. 72 L.Ed. 944 551, 637, ing opinion Brandeis, J.). 350 76 100 L.Ed. 692 U.S. S.Ct. (1956) ; Updegraff, v. Wieman 344 U.S. Updegraff, supra 11. Wieman v. note 7. 183, 215, (1952); 73 S.Ct. 97 L.Ed. 216 Workers, States, U.S.App. cf. Cafeteria & Restaurant etc. v. 132 Carter United McElroy, 886, 898, 35, 41, (1968). 1238, v. 367 U.S. 81 S.Ct. 1244 D.C. 407 F.2d 1743, (1961). 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 Halaby, U.S.App.D.C. 171, v. Dew 115 Updegraff, supra 7, 8. ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍Wieman v. note 344 582, (1963), 4 A.L.R.3d cert. 474 191, 73 S.Ct. 215. granted, U.S. 904, 671, 376 U.S. 84 11 S.Ct. 605, by agreement L.Ed.2d cert. dismissed consequences may 9. That such make a dif parties, 951, 452, 379 U.S. 85 S.Ct. requirements ference as to the of due (1964). 13 L.Ed.2d 550 process recognized Res Cafeteria & Workers, McElroy, supra Day, 242, U.S.App.D.C. taurant etc. v. 14. Eustace v. 114 1743, (1962). 367 U.S. at 81 S.Ct. 314 F.2d 247 See also Mendelson Studemeyer Macy, U.S.App. 46-47, and in v. v. 120, 121, 386, 388, (1966) D.C. F.2d ; cert. v. 799-800 Carter denied, States, supra 12; 11 L. U.S. 84 S.Ct. United Leonard v. Douglas, U.S.App.D.C. 136, Ed.2d 265 also Mc See Greene v. F. construed, employer “immorality” So whether covers [is] mate criterion reasonably Indeed, weAs multitude of sins. it acted Douglas,16 whether doubted in the entire in Leonard there are summarized many persons saintly Civil Service as so Congress attempt defini- did never to have done act which is dis- “cause,” only providing tion of approved by “prevailing mores of our promote the must be one Analytical society.” philosophers would lati- of the service. Some distinguish conventionally between acts responsible thus left to those tude was regarded morally wrong as and acts administering the Act. Faithful- merely disapproved which are in- purpose those ness to its to reward decent, unesthetic; repulsive, or if but forces who served in armed the Commission makes а distinc- such granting protective preference must tion, employees, it is of no benefit who preference be maintained. But may assertedly be dismissed for “in- granted protect in a does not a veteran disgraceful” decent and conduct as well therefrom, position when removal “immorality.” as for light competing poli- viewed circumstances, can cies and all reasonably say prepared are not We said to lead increased reasonably the Commission could not * ** governmental efficiency in find homosexual advance operations.17 “indecent,” “immoral,” or “notorious ly disgraceful” under conven dominant Ill tional norms. But it notion the reject Preliminarily, must appropriate we could of be an function the bureaucracy the label appellee’s once contention that federal jority’s enforce the ma plausibly to an attached “immoral” is in conventional codes of conduct off-duty inquiry conduct, our employee’s employees lives of is at its adequate presence elementary liberty, rationаl concepts into the of with of war pro diversity. privacy, A removal is at an end. cause for And whatever “immorality” may tends quali of of nouncement we think Government’s discourage analysis it parentis careful because fications to act in loco in this unavoidably of di way, precludes connotes a violation the statute it from dis Olympian, charging except or universal protected employees otherwise vine, However, the efficiency of rectitude. of the standards a reason related Accordingly, finding has neither an Civil Service Commission service. expertise requisite employee something nor anointment or has done immoral judg support or enforce moral to make ments, absolute indecent could dismissal with it inquiry only

and we do not understand out further if immoral jurisdiction purports employee is to do so. Its or acts of indecent an things are on confined some ascertainable deleterious effect least range efficiency of Caesar’s, standard of avowed the service. The “immorality” pre might no more than "the is of conduсt which to af be said society.” vailing prevailing front mores our mores is so broad and (1963); Hodges, sion, Society Wash- 2d 749 Pelicone to The Mattachine brief, U.S.App.D.C. p. ington, In his Feb. 3. says: appellee supra States, 15. v. United Carter little There can be doubt the Commis- U.S.App.D.C. F.2d at properly Nor- sion could determine that Homo- conduct was “immoral.” ton’s Supra commonly considered sexual conduct prevailing under mores “immQral” 17. Id. society, as ob- our the Commission at 752. [i.e., policy in a 1966 statement served Macy, supra] Macy, Jr., from from Chairman Lеtter John TV. Chair- the letter subsequent man, here. States United Civil Service Commis- issued its decision event, hardly authority was, of what in varied that we can arrive at holding.25 reference to such conclusion without specific a narrow Thus, conduct. we think em- The homosexual conduct an sufficiency charges appel- of the ployee bear on the in of the lant must be evaluated terms ways. Be- the service a number par- on of what effects the service blackmail, potential it cause he has done or has been shown might security (ticular jeopardize the of classi- (cid:127) likely to to be do.19 fied communications. As acknowl- we edged Halaby, it in some Dew v. unstable IV circumstances be evidence an personality for certain unsuited kinds Halaby, upheld over Dew v. employee If work. makes offensive strong dissent the dismissal of air job, if overtures while on the or his con- predicated part traffic controller notorious, of other duct is employees the reactions homosexual acts he had committed some public whom and of with years not con befоre.20 That case does performance in contact in the he comes controversy, present trol since taken in- his official functions special posi tested on demands poten- or not such account. Whether entailing continuing responsibility tion removal, justify consequences tial many lives21 fact that broadly to “the relevant are at employee “new was a hide,” with of the service.” something not an established employee subjected peculiar dis- who had to a The feature been investigation. Moreover, missal, on none however, it rests mid-career granted Supreme possible in of on the service. these effects certiorari him, fired Mr. Dew.23 The official who writ was dismissed agreement Garbarini, appellant was a parties testified that FAA when the good” doing “very “competent employee” Administrator rescinded his ac adverse fact, appellant, was “not wor- tion work. Garbarini reinstated appel- granted any possible him, effect on pay.24 ried” about him If and back performance, to went far as lant’s and so these not official actions be deemed inquire personnel “if error, history of officers there a confession of prob- any way this kind around case at least casts considerable doubt on contrary ground experience say, U.S.App.D.C. Macy, to and 19. See ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍121 Scott agency’s judgment, 207-208, 182, efficien- 184-185 removing promoted by cy will not be by post was held one from such a as Supra appellant 20. had ad- note 13. questioned appellant, when his “conduct committing mitted at least four unnatural past or'capacity” did not demon- malеs, sex for acts with some them stability, character, qualities of strate years age. pay, when he was or 19 responsibility. and marijuana He also had smoked on several 176-177, Id. 317 F.2d at 587-588. at occasions at about the same time. U.S.App.D.C. 22. Id. F.2d at 588. at at 583. 317 F.2d at Supra 13. 21. The not 23. court said it could ignore the nature of duties. supra See also Meehan v. Id. acting airport He was as an traffic con- U.S.App.D.C. F. at regulate the troller. His duties were to 2d at 830 n. traffic, of air issue clearances flow relying special landing planes, circum- the take-off аnd and Besides sensitivity appel- separation planes proper of the of the maintain the stances job ground position a new and his status as on in the His lant’s and air. investigation, subject gave safeguard- employee initial him to thus control over holding ing passengers, crews, it was not the court said the lives of and reasoning persons ground. Commission’s That such a Civil Service discharge position support requires skill, alertness, uni- “would be of the and versally requires responsibility above no dem- valid.” * We lack the baek- onstration. ” ** * might pretense He “con- as well abandon all the man. lem for provides had se- the statute substantive se- or not we real sidered whether curity problems worry curity supposed beneficiaries. A about” its here enough might, possible claim of concluded “there was embarrassment vague referring way course, Appellant’s du- me.” to influence be bring specific potential interference apparently him into to did not some ties agency’s performance; public, fellow his with an but contact with hiding per- might employees of his “im- were unaware also a smokescreen be judgments Nonetheless, antipathies morality.” ad- sonal or moral Garbarini’s grounds him are excluded statute as visers told that dismissal which “custom, reviewing court must conduct was a with- for dismissal. A agency,” reason- he decided to be able to discern some fol- foreseeable, ably specific continued em- connection be- low the custom because employee’s potentially ployment appellant out to “turn embar- tween an embarrassing agency” Irassing in that conduct and the again, “if this is an incident like occurred 'service. connection estab- Once the agency public lished, on. the for the it could become scandal then it is agency.” whether it out- Commission decide

weighs par- of a loss the service V competent employee. ticular rely obliged Thus, appellee is now appellee In the instant case has solely possibility of on this embarrass-i specific shown us no such connection. justify agency appellant’s' ment to most Indeed, the record is at dismissal. The assertion of such nebu- offеnder,26 extremely infrequent who poses perplexing problems lous “cause” openly carelessly neither nor flaunts proceeding ac- for a must review plays his unorthodox sexual conduct cord broad discretion to the Commission. public.27 Thus, potential for even the do not blushes We doubt the embarrassment the fears caught one of own is whenever unparticularized think the minimal. We flagrante delictu; possibility if the but conclusion that such and unsubstantiated transitory of such institutional discom- possible threatens embarrassment accepted uncritically fiture must agency’s performance quality “pro- a cause for which will arbitrary ground service,” for dismissal.28 mote the position, dispensable Apart duties of the he from the incident after which reasonably arrested, suspected determine wheth- and then to was said he applicant’s engaged is inconsist- condition homosexual er the he have in possession quali- activity grad- of these ent with the on three occasions since his rendering college. him unfit ties to the extent from uation position. of the assume the duties to he ever There is no evidence that Times, May 1969, pp. New York pub- engaged offensive conduct widely accepted study The most light His came to lic. conduct practices estimates American sexual only through police investigative tactics per the American cent” of “at questionable legality. See note of at least population homo- least one male have 34, infra. experience during their lifetime. sexual Pomeroy Martin, Kinsey, Be- & Sexual the Civil We note that Service Commis- City Human Male 623 re- havior sion of the of New York has excluding per- so, policy cently con- If this is that homosexual determined engaged employ- con- in homosexual sons who have is not an automatic bar to duct employ government City. Rather, by would dis- the duct from the Commis- ment public says: qualify over one-third service sion population. Policy result This would to a male that with reference of the dictates devastating inherently applicant absurd and commission be both public per- public required The service service. to determine consequenсes protected qualities reasonably in- from the considered is sonal Appellee the eases apparently relies on which have the Civil Service Commission invariably discharge dismissals on account of finan- sustained does not fi- known irresponsibility.29 delinquents: agencies cial of these Some nancial ex- are have, indeed, pected good employee’s cases cited the risk to consider the 31 to persuade “embarrassment” or “discredit” faith and to make efforts to employing agency; pay but the risk to possible; him to his debts as soon as special only unrepentant which refer involves kind inveterate and dead- wages gov- by disciplined embarrassment. The beats are to be dismissal.33 employees, ernmental unlike those of oth- any doubt, Lest there be em we garnish- employees, subject er are not phasize that we do not hold that homo Creditors, deprived ment. thus of an may sexual conduct never be cause for security device, important and collection protected dismissal of federal em n may importune frequently а federal em- ployee. Nor do potential embarrassment even we conclude ployer employees pressure delinquent from an em impor- paying into tunings their debts.32 Such ployee’s private conduct cir no necessarily in themselves cumstances affect of the efficiency’ some effect on the of the serv- say that, service. What do if the we is likely Moreover, it ice. that commer- agency any force, statute is to have cial ex- establishments would refuse to support promoting cannot a dismissаl as many eligible tend credit to otherwise by merely of the service employees federal without assur- some turning crying its head and “shame.” employer support ance of for their col- Since conclude that eventuality, lection efforts. That should charge cannot be sustained on occur, impact would have an obvious grounds by Commission, relied on employ the attractiveness federal judgment of the District must be and, turn, gov- quality product. short, ernment’s work anticipated Reversed. discredit to the from employee’s delinquency financial TAMM, Judge (dissenting): specific discredit awith sector of the majority again once violates public have an ascertainable judicial cloister erected Adminis- agency’s ability perform effect on the out, trative Procedure Act and rushes its duties. The concern at least relates flying, robes into the forbidden area injury to some more concrete to the serv- give administrative discretion to kind as- general tarnishing ice than a of an subject sistance it feels to what agency’s antiseptic public image. highwaymаn Fur- tactics at the hands of thermore, significant especially it is Civil Commission. Service Sensitive policy by inability plaints identify such contracts” from creditors and/or offending appellant. most males. But we 367 F.2d at 64. must assume that many the Government carries 64-65; 33. See id. at McEachern v. potentially embarrassing such em- F.Supp. 516, (W.D.S.C.1964). ployees on its roles im- without noticeable Appellant argued pact efficiency 34. has the evi- also of the service. by agency dence him the Macy, (8 29. Jenkins v. F.2d 62 Cir. 357 by illegal illegal arrest, tainted an de- 1966) ; Macy, McEachern v. 341 ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍F.2d interrogation police, tention the (4 Forrestal, 1965) ; Cir. Carter v. third-degree inquisition and a of the sort (1949); U.S.App.D.C. 53,175 F.2d 364 long courts have outlawed in criminal denied, 47, cert. U.S. 70 S.Ct. holding cases. of our view (1949). 94 L.Ed. 507 merits, ques- we do not reach the difficult Macy, supra concerning agency’s 30. Jenkins 357 F. tions evi- v. use of n 2d dence so obtained. But see Powell v. Zuekert, U.S.App.D.C. 55, Macy, supra 31. McEachern v. note 29. Macy, supra In Jenkins v. employing agency had received “40 com- targets public reproach ac- phantom in defects administrative supports reality they turn extortion. I this record believe insensitive to tion but presents finding cry the same that this individual “shame” at their heads and regard calling potential in this avoiding more than a risk of the chorus time outlining scope proper his termination will serve the and that cases efficiency Despite judicial of the service. review determina- puffery They shrug to float billows that continue off the Commission’s tions. subject, wayward opinions I findings on this has out of recent that this traveler theory engaged off-duty that homosexual homosexual conduct believe any way рeriods experiences of mem- is not in related conduct and that he govern- drinking ory after and effectiveness “blackout” while theory— suspects not evil or that he mental business is which he assumes very just engaged activ- unrealistic one. has overt homosexual ity, pursue in order to exotic ideas lurk- legal Picking

ing in the underbrush. way quagmire of rhetoric across a reasoning, they engage in casuistic false, chide clever but the Commission delegated frustrate its function. plainly This court held in case of Summerfield, Hargett U.S.App. v. 85, 88, (1957), D.C. GOLDWASSER, Appellant, David “employee discipline removal and are al agen entirely most matters of executive cy Secretary discretion,” “that, long Air BROWN, Harold so Force, et al. compliance there with substantial [is] * * * applicable procedures ad No. re ministrative [is] determination Appeals United States good judg to the wisdom or viewable as of Columbia Circuit. District * department ment of the ex- 11, 1969. Argued June ercising (Citations discretion.” [its] Sept. omitted.) I fol- Decided have felt constrained to again, see, g., time low this view e.

dissenting opinion in Meеhan v. (No. 20,812, May decided 1969) (en banc), although in so doing I remain vox clamantis regard

deserto. to this case I am With substantially convinced that record supports action of the Commission dismissing promote this inman order to of the service and accord- ingly, I affirm. would To do otherwise implicate setting inme precedent proposition for the that off-

duty conduct, coupled with a “blackingout” capacity for intoxi- while cated, relationship bears no real functioning of an with- efficient service government agency. Homosexuals, in a sadly enough, do not their leave emotions Lafayette ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍Square regardless spiritual present Bazelon, Judge, dissented. destinies still Chief

Case Details

Case Name: Clifford L. Norton v. John MacY

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Oct 20, 1969

Citation: 417 F.2d 1161

Docket Number: 21625_1

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.