Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 1987, Fitzgerald began working as an Immigration Inspector with the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice. From 1988-2000, she served as a Customs Inspector with the Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury. Fitzgerald has been continuously employed in various Instructor positions at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) since 2000, providing training to federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers. In 2012, Fitzgerald requested review of her employment history so that she could obtain Customs Officer retirement credit for her past service with INS and Customs. Federal retirement laws extend enhanced benefits to certain groups, such as law-enforcement officers and firefighters, who have served in physically rigorous positions. Under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System, those benefits include eligibility to retire with an annuity at an earlier age than many other federal employees and eligibility to retire based on fewer years of service, 5 U.S.C. 8412(d)(1),(2). In 2007 the law was amended to extend benefits to Customs and Border Patrol Officers. The Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Circuit affirmed denial of her claim, finding that the amendment did not provide “retroactive service” credit for service performed before July 2008, its effective date. View "Fitzgerald v. Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

In 2015, Jones, a veteran, filed 16 appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), alleging that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301–4333, when it did not select him for various job vacancies. An administrative judge consolidated the appeals and ultimately denied relief in an Initial Decision. That Decision became the Final Decision of the MSPB when Jones did not timely file a petition for review. The Federal Circuit affirmed, first holding that it had jurisdiction, rejecting an argument that there was no . final MSPB decision from which Jones could appeal. The AJ properly found that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence supported Jones’s USERRA claim and failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his military service was a motivating factor in HHS’s decision not to hire him for the subject job vacancies. View "Jones v. Dept. of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

In 1985-1986, Kerrigan was a Navy carpenter. He injured his back and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits by the Office of Workers Compensation (OWCP). In 1993, Kerrigan raised concerns regarding his benefits. Over several years, Kerrigan made multiple requests, some of which were denied. In 2001, Kerrigan contacted the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) alleging that DOL employees had based one denial on a form that they falsified or destroyed. The OIG did not investigate, but forwarded the letter to OWCP. Kerrigan pursued, over several years, a suit against DOL for illegal termination of benefits and a suit against the physician who reviewed his medical records. Both were dismissed. In 2013, Kerrigan filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which chose not to investigate, but referred him to the Merit Systems Protection Board, where Kerrigan alleged retaliatory termination of benefits. The ALJ dismissed Kerrigan’s appeal, stating that the Whistleblower Protection Act only covers actions taken by an agency concerning its own employees. The Board stated that 5 U.S.C. 8128(b) provides that benefits determinations are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DOL and are unreviewable and that Kerrigan failed to nonfrivolously allege that his protected disclosures were a contributing factor in the decision to terminate benefits. The Federal Circuit affirmed. While 5 U.S.C. 8128(b) does not bar review, Kerrigan failed to nonfrivolously allege that his protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the decision. View "Kerrigan v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Rosario was an Army Corps of Engineers biologist until his 2010 termination. In 2011, the Merit Systems Protection Board ordered his restoration. His improper removal caused Rosario to suffer depression. He took sick leave. In May 2012, Rosario submitted a letter from Dr. Rodriguez-Velez, to his supervisor, Castillo, stating that his symptoms, which included paranoia and aggressive episodes, were not improving. In April, Rosario submitted another letter, recommending that Rosario return to work, 20–30 hours per week. The Corps viewed this as a request for reasonable accommodation and requested further information. After a delay, Rosario replied that he was going to return to work full time. Castillo informed Rosario that due to the possibility of aggressive episodes, Rosario needed to provide a medical release. Rosario requested leave under protest, then submitted a letter from Dr. Rodriguez-Velez, recommending that Rosario apply for disability because his depression had returned. Rosario did not provide any other medical documentation, despite reminders, and continued to request leave. In November 2012, Rosario forwarded a doctor's report, recommending that Rosario return to work, 20–30 hours per week.The Corps issued a “Revised Notice of Proposed Removal” based on the same charges that led to the 2010 removal. Rosario was placed on administrative leave. Rosario appealed, arguing that he was constructively suspended from July-November 2012. The Board concluded that he was not constructively suspended. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision as supported by substantial evidence. View "Rosario-Fabregas v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Grover worked for many years for the Customs and Border Protection service and participated in the Civil Service Retirement System, 5 U.S.C. 8331–8351. He retired in 2008 and applied for a retirement annuity. By statute, the annuity must reflect the highest average annual pay based on three consecutive years of specified service, and for a customs officer like Grover in the years in question, the calculation must include overtime pay up to $17,500. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in calculating Grover’s pay, did not include anything close to $17,500 in overtime pay, although Grover asserted that he received more than $17,500 in overtime pay in those years. The Merit Systems Protection Board upheld OPM’s calculation, which relied on a particular official record. The Federal Circuit vacated. Neither OPM nor the Board recognized that the record is internally contradictory about what overtime pay Grover received, so neither sought further information, such as pay stubs, that might definitively resolve the uncertainty. The regulation does not permit the Board to affirm OPM’s calculation without resolving the amount-of-overtime-pay factual issue. View "Grover v. Office of Pers. Mgmt." on Justia Law

The Federal Aviation Administration hired De Santis in 2013 and fired him less than one month later, while he was in his probationary period. He appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board under 5 C.F.R. 210.101, 315.805, and 315.806, which apply to employees in the competitive service. The Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because De Santis was in the excepted service, not the competitive service. The Federal Circuit affirmed, citing 49 U.S.C. 40122(g)(3), which authorizes FAA employees to appeal “any action that was appealable to the Board … as of March 31, 1996.” Under that section, Board jurisdiction over an FAA employee’s appeal depends on whether, given the employee’s status in the excepted service at the time of the challenged action, that employee comes within the grants of appeal rights that existed on March 31, 1996. The court rejected an alternative reading under which the Board would disregard the employee's actual current status and ask what status a person in that position, or a similar position, would have had on March 31, 1996. De Santis was an excepted-service employee, and the regulatory appeal rights at issue, unchanged since March 31, 1996, do not apply to excepted-service employees. View "De Santis v. Merit Sys.Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (CBP) as Supply Chain Security Specialists in its Customs-Trade Protection Against Terrorism program, travelled and worked at foreign posts designated by the Secretary of State as “danger pay posts.” They alleged that they did not receive overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Count II, citing the Overseas Differentials and Allowances Act (ODAA) of 1960, 5 U.S.C. 5928, claimed that CBP denied them danger pay allowances for work performed at posts that the Department of State has designated as eligible for such allowances. The Claims Court dismissed Count II for lack of jurisdiction on grounds that ODAA is not a money-mandating statute, that the State Department regulation (DSSR) is not money-mandating, and that CBP has not adopted a policy of paying danger pay to all eligible employees. The Federal Circuit affirmed; section 5928, the DSSR, and the alleged unwritten policy of providing danger pay, cannot reasonably be construed as “money-mandating.” View "Acevedo v. United States" on Justia Law

Rainey, a State Department Supervisory Foreign Affairs Officer, was with the Africa Contingency Operations program when his supervisor relieved him of his duties as contracting officer representative. Rainey complained to the Office of Special Counsel, alleging that his duties had been terminated because he had refused his supervisor’s order to tell a contractor to rehire a terminated subcontractor. Rainey believed that carrying out the order would require him to violate the Federal Acquisition Regulation by improperly interfering with personnel decisions of a prime contractor and requiring the prime contractor to operate in conflict with the contract. The Office of Special Counsel closed its investigation without granting relief. Rainey filed an Individual Right of Action appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board, citing the “right-to-disobey” provision of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9)(D). During his hearing, the Supreme Court held, in in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, that the word “law” in the Act's “right-to-disclose” provision, refers only to a statute, and not to a rule or regulation. The ALJ held that the Board lacked jurisdiction over a claim based on a regulation. The Board agreed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that its decision was constrained by the right-to-disobey provision's language, which protects covered employees from retaliation “for refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law,” and the MacLean holding. View "Rainey v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Lal was appointed as a distinguished consultant at the Centers for Disease Control, a component of the Department of Health and Human Services, in the excepted service under 42 U.S.C. 209(f), which provides that consultants “may be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws.” The agency understood this to mean that Lal was not subject to the statutory due process requirements of the civil-service laws under title 5 of the United States Code, and terminated her employment without providing notice of the termination or a right to respond, as would ordinarily be required by the civil-service laws. The Merit Systems Protection Board concluded that section 209(f) deprived it of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit reversed. While section 209(f) placed Lal into the excepted service, it did not exempt her from the Civil Service Due Process Amendments of 1990, which provide appeal rights to certain excepted service employees, 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C). View "Lal v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

From 2003-2008, Cahill did information-technology work for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an independent contractor. In 2011, the agency hired him as an employee, “to support Data Management activities,” including studies for which field workers use hand-held devices called “Pocket PCs” to collect data. In 2014, Cahill filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, 5 U.S.C. 1214(a)(1)(A), alleging that agency officials had violated the whistleblower protections of 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A) by retaliating for his 2012 disclosures about agency practices, including that the Pocket PCs were outdated, had bad batteries, lost data, and presented data-entry problems. Cahill contended that he was treated differently after that meeting; that he was not invited to BCSB meetings, was discouraged from participating in projects to which he was assigned, was eventually placed on a Performance Action Plan; and that various supervisors treated him and evaluated him poorly. The Merit Systems Protection Board concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Cahill had not presented nonfrivolous allegations that his March 2012 disclosure was known to at least one of the agency officials he charged with taking the challenged personnel actions. The Federal Circuit​ reversed, finding that Cahill adequately alleged that at least one supervisor knew of his statement. View "Cahill v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law