Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03120/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vernice Lockhart James
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Social Security Administration
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VERNICE LOCKHART JAMES,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3120

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-3443-14-0870-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: February 29, 2016

______________________ 

VERNICE LOCKHART JAMES, Columbia, SC, pro se.

KATRINA LEDERER, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Case: 15-3120 Document: 27-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/29/2016
2 JAMES v. MSPB

Vernice Lockhart James, a Senior Case Technician at 

the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review (“ODAR”) appeals the decision of

the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”) 

affirming the ODAR’s action of non-selection.1 We have 

reviewed the issues, and now affirm the Board’s decision.

BACKGROUND

While employed in her current position, Ms. James

applied for the position of Lead Legal Assistant. She was 

not selected for the position, she states due to harmful 

procedural error and defamation. She filed a grievance 

with her union; the grievance was unsuccessful. She then

appealed to the MSPB.

The administrative judge advised Ms. James that 

non-selection is not an actionable adverse action, with 

limited exceptions such as non-selection in retaliation for

whistleblowing. Ms. James responded that her nonselection was due to her whistleblowing activity involving 

the allegedly fraudulent use of Vocational Experts in 

agency disability hearings. The full Board then ruled that

Ms. James had not complied with the required administrative step whereby whistleblowing complaints must first 

be taken to the Office of Special Counsel. Ms. James had 

meanwhile filed a complaint with the Office of Special 

Counsel, including allegations of non-selection for a 

program called the GEAR Program and for a position as 

an equal employment opportunity counselor. The OSC 

had not completed its investigation at the time of Ms. 

James appeal to the full Board. Ms. James also sent the 

full Board various additional materials that had been 

provided to the OSC, but the Board refused them as 

untimely and insufficient to warrant a different outcome. 

 

1 James v. Social Security Administration, M.S.P.B. 

No. AT-3443-14-0870-I-1 (February 11, 2015).

Case: 15-3120 Document: 27-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/29/2016
JAMES v. MSPB 3

DISCUSSION

Although the parties dispute the timeliness and completeness of various submissions, appeal of non-selection 

is not available unless the non-selection was due to whistleblowing and the requirements for whistleblower review 

are met. Ms. James states that the MSPB erred in holding that it could not review her non-selection, for she 

provided sufficient information to the MSPB to show 

whistleblowing and retaliation, including some new

evidence. However, the Board states, and Ms. James 

apparently agrees, that the OSC had not completed its 

inquiry at the time that Ms. James proceeded at the 

MSPB. On this basis, the Board correctly dismissed this 

appeal as premature, a ground that the Board called “lack 

of jurisdiction.” 

The MSPB also states that Ms. James filed a grievance with her union regarding her non-selection, and that

this precludes her from also bringing a whistleblowing 

claim on the same action, see 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d); § 

7121(G)(2). Ms. James does not respond to this position.

The decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is

AFFIRMED. 

No costs.

Case: 15-3120 Document: 27-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/29/2016