James L. Calhoun v. Benjamin F. Bailar, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant
Opinion
Opinion
Karlton, J.
Plaintiff challenges his discharge for falsifying mail volume records on the ground that the administrative findings were not supported by substantial evidence. He appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment. The issue he posits on appeal is whether or not hearsay statements, subsequently disavowed on direct examination, constitute “substantial” evidence sufficient to support the administrative determination.
This Court’s review function in administrative discharge cases is limited “to a determination that the applicable procedures have been complied with and that the dismissal was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious.” Alsbary v. U. S. Postal Service (9th Cir. 1976) 530 F.2d 852, 854 , cert. denied 429 U.S. 828 , 97 S.Ct. 85 , 50 L.Ed.2d 91 . See also 5 U.S.C. 706. We do not try the case de novo, and are limited to the record before us. Because the affidavits questioned here were admitted into evidence without objection, were not the subject of a motion to strike, and had “rational probative force” (See Richardson v. Perales (1971) 402 U.S. 389, 407-408 , 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1430-1431 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 ), we now affirm.