Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01713/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01713-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tonya M. Anderson
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
United States Postal Service
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

TONYA M. ANDERSON,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1713

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-3443-22-0360-I-1.

______________________

Decided: December 9, 2024

______________________

TONYA M. ANDERSON, Cleveland, OH, pro se. 

 STEPHEN FUNG, Office of the General Counsel, United 

States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, 

for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON JANE BOYLE,

KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH. 

 ______________________

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 24-1713 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2024
2 ANDERSON v. MSPB

Tonya Anderson was employed as a Mail Processor at 

the United States Postal Service from July 1997 to 

February 2000, when she was removed from her position. 

When she appealed her removal to the Merit Systems 

Protection Board, the Board dismissed her appeal. Ms. 

Anderson now petitions for us to review the Board’s 

decision. We affirm.

I

The Postal Service removed Ms. Anderson from her 

position as a Mail Processor on February 13, 2000. Two 

decades later, on June 28, 2022, she filed an appeal of her 

removal with the Board, alleging either a reduction in 

grade or wrongful dismissal. On July 7, 2022, the assigned 

Board administrative judge ordered Ms. Anderson to 

demonstrate that the Board had jurisdiction, and Ms. 

Anderson filed no response.

In late July 2022, the Postal Service moved to dismiss 

Ms. Anderson’s appeal on the ground that the Board lacked 

jurisdiction. The Postal Service argued that Ms. Anderson 

came with none of the categories of Postal Service 

employees entitled to appeal to the Board as relevant here: 

She was not a preference-eligible employee (an employee

who meets specific criteria related to veteran status), a 

management or supervisory employee, or an employee 

engaged in personnel work other than a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity. SAppx44–46 (citing 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7511(a)(1)(B); 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a); 5 U.S.C. § 2108(1)–

(5)). The Postal Service also argued that the 2022 appeal 

of a 2000 removal was untimely. SAppx46–47 (citing 5 

C.F.R. §§ 1201.22(b)(1) (30-day period for appeal), 

1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B) (appellant bears burden of proof on 

timeliness)).

On September 27, 2022, the Board’s administrative 

judge dismissed the appeal because, as the Postal Service 

argued, Ms. Anderson had no right of appeal. SAppx8–11. 

On October 14, 2022, Ms. Anderson sought full Board 

Case: 24-1713 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2024
ANDERSON v. MSPB 3

review, confirming in her petition that she was neither a 

supervisor nor a preference-eligible employee. SAppx54–

59. On April 2, 2024, the Board affirmed the dismissal on 

the ground set forth by the administrative judge. SAppx1–

2. Like the administrative judge, the Board did not address 

the government’s assertion of untimeliness. SAppx2 n.2.

Ms. Anderson timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

II

We decide de novo whether the Board had jurisdiction. 

Forest v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 47 F.3d 409, 410 

(Fed. Cir. 1995). “[W]e are bound by the [Board]’s factual 

determinations unless those findings are not supported by 

substantial evidence.” Bolton v. Merit Systems Protection 

Board, 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Ms. Anderson

has the burden of proof to establish jurisdiction by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A).

The Board’s jurisdiction “is limited to those actions 

which are made appealable to it by law, rule, or regulation.” 

Synan v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 765 F.2d 1099, 

1100 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a). The statute 

that grants the Board jurisdiction over the appeals of 

removals of employees generally excludes Postal Service 

employees. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(8). But under the Postal 

Service Employees Appeal Rights Act (PEARA), certain 

Postal Service employees may appeal an adverse action to 

the Board: preference-eligible employees under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7511(a)(1)(B); and persons who are supervisory or 

management employees or engaged in personnel work 

other than in a purely non-confidential clerical capacity, as 

long as they have completed one year of current continuous 

service in the same or similar positions. 39 U.S.C. 

§ 1005(a)(4). To be preference eligible under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7511(a)(1)(B), an employee must have served in active 

duty in the armed forces during one of several enumerated 

Case: 24-1713 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2024
4 ANDERSON v. MSPB

time periods, be a disabled veteran, or have a special family 

relationship with a preference-eligible person or disabled 

veteran. 5 U.S.C. § 2108. 

Ms. Anderson provided no evidence to the Board that 

she comes within any of the categories of persons permitted 

by PEARA to appeal a removal to the Board. First, she 

made no showing that she was a veteran, or has the 

required special family relationship, or otherwise qualified 

as a preference-eligible employee. SAppx23–26, SAppx35. 

Second, she did not show that she was a supervisory or 

management employee or that she was engaged in 

personnel work in other than a purely nonconfidential 

clerical capacity. SAppx23–26. Although she listed

“Associate Supervisor” as her position in her appeal to the 

Board, SAppx23, her employment records do not list her 

“Position Title” as a supervisor, SAppx35, and in her 

petition for Board review of the administrative judge’s 

decision, she admitted that she was not placed into the 

supervisor program, SAppx54. 

Because Ms. Anderson has not shown that she 

qualified as an employee with Board appeal rights, the 

Board correctly dismissed her appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. Given this conclusion, we need not reach the 

issue of timeliness.

III

We affirm the Board’s dismissal. 

The parties shall bear their own costs. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 24-1713 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 12/09/2024