It’s always gratifying to see a news story in which qualities like persistence get rewarded. In this day and age, those kinds of stories often arise when an individual concludes that some unfairness has occurred and refuses to give up, even in the face of institutional resistance, multiple defeats, and great odds, because of the principles at stake.
The Wall Street Journal recently published one of those stories. The persistent figure is Stuart Harrow, a Department of Defense employee who believes he was wronged in 2013, when budget cuts and resulting furloughs briefly forced him out of work. Since then, he has been pursuing every avenue to recover what he says he is owed–which amounts to about $3,000, plus interest. He met defeat in the Department of Defense, before an administrative law judge, before the Merit Systems Protection Board, and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He’s lost at every step in the process, but he kept plugging, and in March his case was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Technically, Harrow’s case before the Supreme Court is about whether a missed filing deadline is fatal to his ability to recover–even if the circumstances suggest it wasn’t really Harrow’s fault. In this instance, the circumstances include a five-year delay in the Merit Systems Protection Board hearing Harrow’s case because it didn’t have a quorum, and then its eventual decision being sent to the wrong email address because his agency had changed email servers–which meant Harrow never got the long-delayed ruling. But Harrow kept at it, found two law professors to take his case, and the Supreme Court, which has been trying for years to clarify the rules on court deadlines, accepted his appeal.
That’s how a case about $3,000, plus interest, ended up in the highest court in the land. Behind it all is one man who wouldn’t give up. The Court will decide whether Stuart Harrow will finally recover the $3,000 in pay he thinks was wrongly withheld, but what’s also true is that Harrow has already prevailed in a very real sense. Deep down, I suspect Harrow would agree–although I’m sure he’d also like to get that $3,000. Through his persistence, he’s brought attention to an issue, held enormous bureaucracies to account, and ensured that his concerns have been heard. Win or lose, Stuart Harrow’s persistence has made a difference.
Webner House 