Thomas v. General Services Administration’s Empirical Analysis
756 F.2d 86 · 1985
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Thomas v. General Services Administration (1986), Mercer v. Department of Health & Human Services (1985)
6 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments) · 5 U.S.C. § 7513 · 5 U.S.C. § 7701 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on Johnson v. Orr · Mosely v. Department of the Navy
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“be injurious to the employee, his fellow workers, or the public.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the placing of an employee, for disciplinary reasons, in a temporary status without duties and pay.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Petitioner was a training specialist with the Federal Protective Service (FPS), the division of GSA responsible for law enforcement on government property. In this capacity, he was responsible for training other FPS officers, training and evaluating contract security guard services, and similar duties involving FPS personnel. Problems within his office arose because petitioner repeatedly exhibited what has been said to be bizarre behavior. Specifically, the agency’s charges alleged inter alia, that petitioner would level a realistic-looking toy pistol at fellow employees to practice his aim; that petitioner would practice martial arts on soda machines and other objects; and that petitioner on one occasion hacked at a cardboard carton with a scissors while saying “even this is too good for her”— allegedly referring to a fellow employee. According to GSA, petitioner also discussed an incipient revolution (of which he would be a part) with such conviction and in such detail that his fellow employees became nervous in petitioner’s presence. In January 1982 GSA ordered petitioner to submit to a psychiatric fitness-for-duty examination. After the examination, at which the psychiatrist found him to be highly paranoid, GSA placed him on involuntary sick leave. Soon thereafter, on May 22, 1982, the GSA proposed petitioner’s suspension from the federal service, citing both his behavior around the office and its adverse impact on the other employees as the cause. In a notice to petition”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.