Brunton v. United States (1981)

As we said in Jimenez Fuentes , unless a regional director supports the agency’s policies, the agency head “ ‘might face a situation where the hostile efforts or foot-dragging actions of any one of the [regional directors] could singlehandedly thwart the Administration’s goals in that particular [region].’ ” 803 F.2d at 10 (quoting Brunton v. United States, 518 F.Supp. 223, 239 (S.D.Ohio 1981). “[P]olicy implementation is just as important as policymaking.” Branti v. Finkel,…

Clarke, et al., 639 F.2d 49, 50-51 (1st Cir.1981); Joseph Loughney, et al. v. Eugene F. Hickey, et al., 635 F.2d 1063 , 1064 (3d Cir.1980); Carolyn Mazus v. Dept. of Transportation, Comm. of Pa., et al., 629 F.2d 870 , 873 n. 1 (3d Cir.1980); Lipinski, et al. v. Dietrich, et al., 578 F.Supp. 235, 240 (ND Ind.1984); de la Cruz v. Pruitt, 590 F.Supp. 1296, 1303 (ND Ind.1984); Nilan v. The Honorable Salvatore De Meo, et al., 575 F.Supp. 1225, 1227 (ED Pa.1983); Dove v. Fletcher…

“Without the Regional Directors’ political sympathy and loyal cooperation, the Executive Director ‘might face a situation where the hostile efforts or foot-dragging actions of any one of the [eleven Regional Directors] could single-handedly thwart the Administration’s goals in that particular [region.]’ ” Id. (quoting Brunton v. United States, 518 F.Supp. 223, 239 (S.D.Ohio 1981)).

Ness v. Marshall, 660 F.2d 517, 521 (3d Cir.1981); Brunton v. United States, 518 F.Supp. 223, 239 (S.D.

See Brunton v. United States, 518 F.Supp. 223, 238-40 (S.D.Ohio 1981). 17 Others state that the political termination is permissible where the employer should expect the cooperation of a loyal and trusted partisan in the position in question.