on Post Office and Civil Serv.). In my view, the Court of Federal Claims rightly credited this persuasive evidence of Congress’s intent that “summoned ... by a court ... to serve” should exclude those employees who freely volunteer for a grand jury pool. Hall, 99 Fed.Cl. at 232. Hall, in contrast, points to no legislative history in support of her theory that Congress intended for any employee who freely volunteers to serve, contrary to the plain directive of her supervisor, to qualify for the benefit of paid court leave. The majority holds that “summoned” in the context of jurors in § 6322(a)(1) is “unambiguous” and applies “when[ever] a court issues a summons, which requires the individual by the force of law to appear before the court,” Majority Op. at 1346 n. 7. Under th 1980) (<HOLDING>); In re Court Leave, B-214719, 1984 WL 46229
holding that court leave under  6322 is not available to a federal employee summoned to appear in juvenile court in her capacity as the juveniles parent as a party to the proceedings holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that court leave under  6322 is not available to a federal employee who appears in court as a plaintiff in her own action holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave holding that court leave under  6322 is not available to a federal employee who is summoned to appear as a defendant in the court action concerned