Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01291/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01291-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta Hayden
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
United States Postal Service
Intervenor

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LORETTA HAYDEN,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2016-1291

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0752-15-0025-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: May 10, 2016

______________________ 

LORETTA HAYDEN, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

JEFFREY A. GAUGER, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

JOSEPH E. ASHMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Case: 16-1291 Document: 24-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2016
2 HAYDEN v. MSPB

Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., REGINALD 

T. BLADES, JR. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LINN and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Loretta Hayden petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing her 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Hayden v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., No. NY-0752-15-0025-I-1, 123 M.S.P.R. 9 (M.S.P.B. 

Oct. 7, 2015). Because Ms. Hayden was not a manager or 

a confidential employee within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 

§ 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii), we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Hayden was a non-preference-eligible Human Resources Specialist in the New York division of the Labor 

Relations Office of the United States Postal Service

(“USPS”). In this position, she handled unemployment 

claims for former USPS employees and represented the 

USPS at unemployment compensation hearings. She had 

access to confidential agency databases and performed 

information processing tasks, such as verifying information from claims in the Employee Personnel Action 

History (“EPAH”) database, receiving and inputting “Step 

2 grievances” and “Formal A appeals” into the agency’s

Grievance Tracking System (“GATS”), inputting disciplinary information into the Disciplinary Tracking Program 

(“DTP”), and running reports against the Time and Attendance Control System (“TACS”) in response to union 

requests. She also had access to the Labor Relations 

Research Information System (“LRRIS”), a national 

database of USPS arbitration decisions. Ms. Hayden was 

paid according to the Executive and Administrative 

Case: 16-1291 Document: 24-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2016
HAYDEN v. MSPB 3

Schedule (“EAS”) pay scale, level 16, and was not a member of a collective bargaining unit. 

On May 20, 2014, USPS proposed to demote Ms. Hayden to a PS-4 Mail Handler for entering incorrect information relating to a grievance against her sister, another

USPS employee who had been accused of mail theft. On 

June 12, 2014, Ms. Hayden met with a USPS official to 

respond to the proposed demotion. USPS issued a letter 

of written decision on September 10, 2014, demoting Ms. 

Hayden as proposed. The letter informed Ms. Hayden

“[y]ou have the right to appeal this decision directly to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board.” 

Ms. Hayden appealed to the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (“Board”) on October 28, 2014. On November 24, 

2014, the administrative judge assigned to her case issued 

an Order to Show Cause informing Ms. Hayden that she 

had the burden of proving that the Board had jurisdiction 

over her appeal and directing her to provide argument 

and evidence on this issue. Ms. Hayden submitted written responses and provided oral clarification over the 

telephone. On June 15, 2015, the administrative judge

issued an Initial Decision finding that the Board lacked 

jurisdiction over Ms. Hayden’s appeal because Ms. Hayden failed to show that she was a manager or a confidential employee. The Board affirmed the administrative 

judge’s determination. 

Ms. Hayden timely appealed to this court. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

The Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary, but is strictly 

circumscribed by statute and regulation. See 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7701(a). With respect to adverse actions taken against 

non-preference-eligible USPS employees, the Board only 

has jurisdiction to review the action if the employee:

Case: 16-1291 Document: 24-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2016
4 HAYDEN v. MSPB

(I) is in the position of a supervisor or a management employee in the Postal Service, or is an employee of the Postal Service engaged in personnel 

work in other than a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity; and

(II) has completed 1 year of current continuous 

service in the same or similar positions.

39 U.S.C. § 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii) (emphases added). 

Whether the Board has jurisdiction is a question of 

law which we review de novo. Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We review 

underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence. Id. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Id. 

It is undisputed that Ms. Hayden completed one year 

of service and was neither a preference-eligible employee 

nor a supervisor. Supplemental App. 3. Thus, in order to 

establish Board jurisdiction, she had to prove that she 

was either a “management employee” or was “engaged in 

personnel work in other than a purely nonconfidential 

clerical capacity.” 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I). The 

Board concluded that Ms. Hayden failed to show that she 

fell within either of these categories. Supplemental App.

6–7. On appeal, Ms. Hayden challenges these determinations and argues that she was denied due process. We 

address each argument in turn.

A 

Under Supreme Court and National Labor Relations 

Board (“NLRB”) precedent, a “management employee” is 

one who “formulate[s] and effectuate[s] management 

policies by expressing and making operative the decisions 

of their employer.” Waldau v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 19 

F.3d 1935, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting NLRB v. Bell 

Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, 416 U.S. 267, 286 (1974)) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Whether an employCase: 16-1291 Document: 24-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/10/2016
HAYDEN v. MSPB 5

ee meets this criteria is not determined by her job title, 

but by her “actual job responsibilities, authority, and 

relationship to management.” Bell Aerospace, 416 U.S. at 

290 n.19.

The administrative judge considered these principles 

and determined that Ms. Hayden failed to allege facts 

that she “formulate[d] and effectuate[d] management 

policies by expressing and making operative the decisions 

of their employer.” Supplemental App. 16. We agree. 

Ms. Hayden has not asserted or provided evidence that 

she actually formulated USPS policy as a Human Resources Specialist. Indeed, it appears that her responsibilities largely involved carrying out policy set by others. 

For example, Ms. Hayden stated that, in representing the 

USPS in unemployment compensation cases, she “investigate[d] the validity” of unemployment claims against the 

EPAH database. Id. at 54. This type of verification work 

is simply enforcement of existing policy, which is insufficient to render her a “management employee.”

Ms. Hayden’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Ms. Hayden points to certain pieces of evidence

which seem to classify her job as managerial, including an 

excerpt from the USPS letter of decision terming her “a 

postal employee representing Management,” her membership in the National Association of Postal Supervisors 

(“NAPS”), and her placement in the Labor Relations 

Office, which she contends only offered management-level 

positions. However, being labeled “management” does not 

make one a “management employee” within the meaning 

of 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I). Instead, the inquiry 

must focus on the employee’s actual job duties; as discussed above, Ms. Hayden failed to allege sufficient facts 

on this point. 

Ms. Hayden also argues that she was a “management 

employee” because she was placed on the EAS pay scale, 

had been given a non-bargaining salary increase in the 

Case: 16-1291 Document: 24-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/10/2016
6 HAYDEN v. MSPB

past, and was not a member of a collective bargaining 

unit. We have held that USPS employees who are legally 

barred from participation in a collective bargaining unit 

have appeal rights to the Board. McCandless v. Merit 

Sys. Prot. Bd., 996 F.2d 1193, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

However, none of these facts alleged by Ms. Hayden 

would, if true, establish that she is precluded from joining 

a collective bargaining unit as a matter of law. See Bolton, 154 F.3d at 1321 (affirming a denial of jurisdiction 

where “Bolton [has not] shown any legal authority suggesting he is ineligible for union membership as a matter 

of law”); Coursen v. U.S. Postal Serv., 256 F.3d 1353, 1356 

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming a denial of jurisdiction where 

“Coursen failed to demonstrate that he was precluded as 

a matter of law from joining a CBU”). Moreover, her 

placement on the EAS pay scale is not sufficient to term 

her a “management employee.” Accordingly, Ms. Hayden 

is not entitled to Board jurisdiction.

B 

Because Ms. Hayden is not a “management employee,” the Board would only have jurisdiction over her 

appeal if she is “engaged in personnel work in other than 

a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity.” 39 U.S.C. 

§ 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii). To fall within this category, she must 

satisfy the NLRB’s definition of “confidential employee.” 

McCandless 996 F.2d at 1199. The NLRB defines “confidential employee” as one who (1) “assist[s] and act[s] in a 

confidential capacity to persons who formulate, determine 

and effectuate management policy in the field of labor 

relations,” or (2) “regularly ha[s] access to confidential 

information concerning anticipated changes which may 

result from collective-bargaining negotiations.” NLRB v. 

Hendricks Cnty. Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 454 U.S. 

170, 189 (1981) (citations omitted). 

The administrative judge found that, although Ms. 

Hayden regularly had access to confidential information

Case: 16-1291 Document: 24-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/10/2016
HAYDEN v. MSPB 7

as a part of her work on unemployment compensation 

cases, she neither assisted in the “formulat[ion] . . . [of] 

management policy in the field of labor relations” nor 

“had access to confidential information concerning anticipated changes which may result from collectivebargaining negotiations.” Supplemental App. 18–19. 

Substantial evidence supports these findings. Ms. 

Hayden conceded to the administrative judge that she did 

not participate in arbitration or grievance proceedings at 

the USPS, and she presented no other evidence that she 

was involved in labor disputes or collective bargaining 

negotiations. Id. In addition, a declaration submitted by 

her supervisor states that Ms. Hayden “did not perform 

any Labor Relations Specialist (EAS-19) work such as 

deciding on grievances, meeting with unions, reviewing 

and preparing employee discipline, or providing advice to 

postal supervisors/managers on contractual issues.” Id. at

52. Although Ms. Hayden had access to the GATS system, nothing in the record shows that she performed 

anything more than clerical data entry. See id. at 29, 61. 

Thus, we see no reason to disturb the administrative 

judge’s factual findings. 

Ms. Hayden argues that she was a “confidential employee” because she had access to confidential information 

in the EPAH, TACS, GATS, DTP, and LRRIS systems, 

but this argument fails as a matter of law. “Mere access 

to personnel information is insufficient to establish confidential status.” McCandless, 996 F.3d at 1200 (quoting 

Benifield v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. CH07528810478, 1989 

WL 17814 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 28, 1989)). Accordingly, we 

agree that Ms. Hayden was not “engaged in personnel 

work in other than a purely nonconfidential clerical 

capacity” under 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii).

C 

Ms. Hayden also argues that the denial of a right to 

appeal to the Board deprived her of due process. HowevCase: 16-1291 Document: 24-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/10/2016
8 HAYDEN v. MSPB

er, jurisdiction is a threshold issue and the Board was 

correct to decline to proceed once it determined it lacked 

authority to hear her case. Accordingly, no further process was due.

CONCLUSION

We have carefully considered the remainder of Ms. 

Hayden’s arguments and have determined that they lack 

merit. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s 

decision that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Hayden’s 

appeal.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs. 

Case: 16-1291 Document: 24-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/10/2016