Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02102/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
General Services Administration
Respondent
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Vitaly Shik
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VITALY SHIK,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2102

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-3443-16-0034-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: October 5, 2016

______________________ 

VITALY SHIK, Commack, NY, pro se.

LINDSEY SCHRECKENGOST, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 16-2102 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/05/2016
2 SHIK v. MSPB

Vitaly Shik appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Because the Board properly 

dismissed Mr. Shik’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, we 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Shik, a GS-13 Supervisory Mechanical Engineer 

with the General Services Administration, was temporarily promoted on January 13, 2013, to the GS-14 position of

Supervisory Commodity Management Specialist with a 

term not to exceed 120 days. The temporary promotion 

ended on May 13, 2013, upon which Mr. Shik returned to 

the GS-13 position of Supervisory Mechanical Engineer. 

In 2015, Mr. Shik filed an appeal with the Board, alleging that he continued to perform duties of the GS-14 

position following the termination of his temporary promotion but was still being compensated at the GS-13 

level. An administrative judge ordered Mr. Shik to show 

cause that his appeal was within the Board’s jurisdiction. 

In response, Mr. Shik argued a theory of constructive 

demotion. 

The Board ultimately dismissed Mr. Shik’s appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. The Board found no evidence that 

Mr. Shik was permanently promoted to the GS-14 position and noted that “[t]he return of an employee to his 

permanent position after a temporary promotion is not an 

action appealable to the Board.” J.A. 3. The Board also 

determined that Mr. Shik failed to nonfrivolously allege 

that he suffered a constructive demotion because he did 

not argue that his former position was actually reclassified upwards. Finally, the Board characterized Mr. Shik’s 

claim that he was performing GS-14 duties while holding 

a position classified at GS-13 as a classification issue that 

lies outside the Board’s jurisdiction. 

Mr. Shik appealed to this court, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

Case: 16-2102 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/05/2016
SHIK v. MSPB 3

DISCUSSION

We review decisions of the Board on a limited basis, 

setting aside Board actions, findings, or conclusions only 

if we find them to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 

(2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or 

regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by 

substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Whether the 

Board had jurisdiction over Mr. Shik’s claims is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Whiteman v. 

Dep’t of Transp., 688 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

Mr. Shik bears the burden of establishing the Board’s 

jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Kahn v. 

Dep’t of Justice, 528 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters 

over which it has been specifically granted jurisdiction by 

a law, rule, or regulation. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a); Prewitt v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 133 F.3d 885, 886 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

We find that the Board properly dismissed Mr. Shik’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Shik argues that after his temporary promotion 

ended, he continued to perform all of the functions of the 

GS-14 position but was compensated at the GS-13 pay 

rate. 

This argument, however, runs afoul of the wellrecognized principle that a “federal employee is entitled to 

receive only the salary of the position to which he was 

appointed, even though he may have performed the duties 

of another position or claims that he should have been 

placed in a higher grade.” United States v. Testan, 

424 U.S. 392, 407 (1976). The Board lacks jurisdiction 

over claims that simply allege, without more, that a 

federal employee should receive the salary of a position he 

is not appointed to because he performed the duties of 

that position. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 

523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (“Dismissal for lack of subjectCase: 16-2102 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/05/2016
4 SHIK v. MSPB

matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the 

federal claim is proper only when the claim is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this 

Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to 

involve a federal controversy.’” (quoting Oneida Indian 

Nation of N.Y. v. Cty. of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 

(1974))). Thus, because Mr. Shik was not permanently 

appointed to the GS-14 position and instead only occupied 

a GS-13 position, the Board does not have jurisdiction 

over this claim.

To the extent that Mr. Shik’s argument is that the 

classification of his GS-13 position is incorrect, “[t]he 

board has not been granted appellate jurisdiction over 

cases concerning the proper classification of a position, 

either by statute or regulation.” Saunders v. Merit Sys. 

Prot. Bd., 757 F.2d 1288, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The 

statutory remedy for a person who believes his position 

has been classified improperly for pay purposes is to 

request that the Office of Personnel Management audit 

the position and direct the agency to change the grade of 

the position. See 5 U.S.C. § 5112(b).

Mr. Shik also raised the theory of constructive demotion before the Board, though it is unclear whether he

maintains this argument before this court. In any event,

Mr. Shik’s reliance on this theory is unavailing. “To 

establish a constructive demotion claim, the employee 

must demonstrate that (i) the employee was reassigned 

from a position which, due to the issuance of a new classification standard or correction of classification error, is 

entitled to a higher grade, and (ii) the employee meets the 

legal and qualification requirements for promotion to the 

higher grade.” Walker v. Dep’t of the Navy, 106 F.3d 1582, 

1584 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Mr. Shik makes no such allegations here. Therefore, we find that he has not satisfied 

his burden of proving jurisdiction under the theory of 

constructive demotion. 

Case: 16-2102 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/05/2016
SHIK v. MSPB 5

We have carefully considered Mr. Shik’s remaining 

arguments and determined that they lack merit.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-2102 Document: 21-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/05/2016