Nixon v. Fitzgerald

457 U.S. 731 (1982)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Fitzgerald (P) testified to Congress about cost overruns in the C-5A transport that could approximate $2 billion. P also revealed unexpected technical difficulties has arisen during the development of the aircraft. A year later, P lost his job as a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force; this was done to promote economy and efficiency in the armed forces. Concerned that P may have been the victim of retaliation, the Subcommittee on Economy in Government convened public hearings. Nixon (D) was queried about P's impending separation from the government. Haldeman was asked to get another job for P. However, by internal memo, Butterfield reported to Haldeman that P is a top-notch cost expert, but he must be given very low marks in loyalty and that he should bleed for a while at least. P complained to the Civil Service Commission. It found for P on a narrow basis and recommended reappointment to his old position or a job of comparable authority. There was no specific finding that P had suffered retaliation for his testimony before Congress. P then sued for damages. The District Court dismissed the action under the District of Columbia's 3-year statute of limitations, and the Court of Appeals affirmed as to all but one defendant, White House aide Alexander Butterfield. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Fitzgerald had no reason to suspect White House involvement in his dismissal, at least until 1973. In that year, reasonable grounds for suspicion had arisen, most notably through publication of the internal White House memorandum in which Butterfield had recommended that Fitzgerald at least should be made to 'bleed for a while' before being offered another job in the administration. Holding that concealment of illegal activity would toll the statute of limitations, the Court of Appeals remanded the action against Butterfield for further proceedings in the District Court. Following the remand and extensive discovery thereafter, P filed a second amended complaint in the District Court on July 5, 1978. It was in this amended complaint -- more than eight years after he had complained of his discharge to the Civil Service Commission -- that P first named Nixon (D) as a party defendant. By March 1980, only three defendants remained: the petitioner Richard Nixon and White House aides Harlow and Butterfield. Denying a motion for summary judgment, the District Court ruled that the action must proceed to trial. The court also ruled that D was not entitled to claim absolute Presidential immunity. D took a collateral appeal of the immunity decision to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals dismissed summarily.