Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03014/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Respondent
Larry L. Price
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LARRY L. PRICE,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3014

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-4324-12-0740-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: May 7, 2015

______________________ 

LARRY L. PRICE, Belleville, IL, pro se.

MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-3014 Document: 29-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/07/2015
2 PRICE v. HUD

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Larry L. Price petitions for review of a final order of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying his 

requests for corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (“VEOA”) and the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

(“USERRA”). We must affirm the Board’s decision unless 

it was “(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). Because Mr. Price has not 

shown any reversible error by the Board, we affirm the

Board’s decision. 

DISCUSSION

Federal agencies can use two types of selection processes to fill vacancies. Joseph v. FTC, 505 F.3d 1380, 

1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007). One process is competitive examination that is open to non-agency employees. Id. In a 

competitive examination, the selecting official chooses 

from a list of qualified candidates, each given a numerical 

rating. Id. As a preferential treatment, the numerical 

ratings for veterans in competitive examinations are 

increased. Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 3309). The other selection process is merit promotion, which is typically limited 

to agency employees and certain other federal employees. 

Id. VEOA created a new preferential treatment for 

veterans to compete through the merit promotion process 

that would have been otherwise closed to them. See 5 

U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 335.106 (“Special selection 

procedures for certain veterans under merit promotion.”). 

Id. However, the veterans’ rating bonus available in 

competitive examinations does not apply in merit promotions. Joseph, 505 F.3d at 1382; see 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(3). 

Case: 15-3014 Document: 29-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/07/2015
PRICE v. HUD 3

The Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(“HUD”) advertised the General Engineer and Project 

Manager vacancies in St. Louis at issue under both the 

merit promotion and competitive examination announcements. Mr. Price applied for the General Engineer vacancy through both announcements and for the Project 

Manager vacancy through only the merit promotion 

announcement. He was not selected for either vacancy. 

Mr. Price challenges his non-selection for the General 

Engineer vacancy as violating both VEOA and USERRA. 

Mr. Price challenges his non-selection for the Project 

Manager vacancy as violating USERRA.

Under USERRA, Mr. Price argues that HUD’s use of 

dual announcements under both the competitive examination and the merit promotion procedures was per se 

discriminatory against veterans. Mr. Price contends that 

HUD cannot prove that it would have made the same nonselection of him in the absence of his status as a veteran. 

Mr. Price’s contention is misplaced, however, because 

he bears “the initial burden of showing” that his military 

service was “a substantial or motivating factor” in the 

adverse employment action. See Sheehan v. Dep’t of the 

Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting 

NLRB v. Transp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S 393, 400-01 

(1983)). We find no error in the conclusions by the Board 

and the administrative judge that Mr. Price failed to 

provide any evidence to carry his initial burden. Indeed, 

if Mr. Price were not a veteran, he would not receive any 

rating bonus in competitive examinations and would not 

have been allowed to apply for merit promotions. In that 

scenario, there is nothing in the record to suggest that 

Mr. Price would have been selected for either vacancy at 

issue.

Under VEOA, Mr. Price’s grievance on his nonselection for the General Engineer vacancy centers on his 

lack of a rating bonus on the merit promotion list of 

Case: 15-3014 Document: 29-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/07/2015
4 PRICE v. HUD

qualified candidates. HUD filled this vacancy with a 

candidate who received a 100.00 rating on the merit 

promotion list at grade 13. Mr. Price, included on the 

merit promotion list at grade 12, also received a 100.00 

rating. According to Mr. Price, if he had received a 5-

point bonus, his rating would have been 105, thus entitling him to be selected for this vacancy. Mr. Price 

acknowledges, however, that he would only receive the 

rating bonus in competitive examinations. Mr. Price thus 

advances two key contentions. 

First, Mr. Price contends that the Board and the administrative judge were wrong in finding that HUD had 

not prepared a list of qualified candidates from the parallel competitive announcement. Mr. Price believes that a 

list of qualified candidates from the parallel competitive 

announcement was prepared and that he was listed with 

the highest rating because of the veterans’ rating bonus. 

See J.A. 25. Mr. Price argues that HUD denied the existence of a competitive examination list for this vacancy to 

justify his non-selection. In support, Mr. Price quotes 

from the selecting official’s memorandum documenting 

that she reviewed the “selection rosters for the subject 

position.” Pet’r’s Br. 8. The use of the plural form “rosters” along with a subject line referring to both merit 

promotion and competitive announcements, according to 

Mr. Price, meant that the selecting official had the list of 

qualified candidates from both announcements in her 

possession. 

This inference suggested by Mr. Price, however, was 

contradicted by direct evidence in the record. The selecting official testified that she made the final selection from 

the merit promotion list of qualified candidates without 

waiting for the competitive examination list because of 

time constraints imposed by the end of the fiscal year. 

See J.A. 72-73, 98. This testimony was corroborated by 

HUD’s human resources specialist who was in charge of 

issuing the lists of qualified candidates in competitive 

Case: 15-3014 Document: 29-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/07/2015
PRICE v. HUD 5

examinations. J.A. 105-06. The human resources specialist further explained that competitive examinations 

usually receive far more applicants and thus their lists of 

qualified candidates take longer to prepare than for merit 

promotions. Id. As such, there was substantial evidence 

to support the Board’s factual finding that the list of 

candidates from the parallel competitive announcement 

was not prepared.

Second, Mr. Price contends that HUD violated VEOA 

by failing to consider candidates under competitive examination procedures. Specifically, Mr. Price argues that 

when an agency makes dual announcements under both 

the merit promotion and competitive examination procedures, VEOA requires the agency to consider veterans 

who applied through both announcements under both 

processes. Mr. Price’s position is not supported by VEOA.

Under VEOA, “[a]n agency’s simultaneous use of the 

competitive process and the merit promotion process is 

not of itself a violation of veterans preference.” Dean v. 

Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 548 F.3d 1370, 1373 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). VEOA provides that eligible veterans 

“may not be denied the opportunity to compete for vacant 

positions for which the agency . . . will accept applications 

from individuals outside its own workforce under merit 

promotion procedures.” 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1). We have 

explained that VEOA guarantees veterans “only a right to 

apply and an opportunity to compete” for certain merit 

promotion vacancies. Joseph, 505 F.3d at 1383. In competing for merit promotions, VEOA does not provide 

veterans a numerical rating bonus that may have been 

available in competitive examinations. Id. VEOA also 

says “nothing about the basis upon which the agency 

could make its selection.” Id. 

In support of his position, Mr. Price cites Gingery v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 114 M.S.P.R. 175 (2010). 

The issue in Gingery was that the agency failed to include 

Case: 15-3014 Document: 29-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/07/2015
6 PRICE v. HUD

the veteran’s name on the merit promotion list of qualified candidates, which “contained only the name of an 

internal candidate . . . .” 114 M.S.P.R. 175, ¶ 2. The 

veteran in Gingery was thus denied “a bona fide opportunity to compete” under VEOA. Id. at ¶ 11. In contrast, 

Mr. Price acknowledges that his name was included on 

the merit promotion list of qualified candidates. Pet’r’s 

Br. 10 (“The Appellant was the only veteran listed on the 

Merit Certificate.”). Mr. Price was therefore afforded a 

bona fide opportunity to compete for the merit promotion 

announcement, and that was the veterans’ preference he 

was due under VEOA. Under VEOA, Mr. Price has not 

persuasively shown why HUD’s failure to wait for the 

issuance of a list of qualified candidates from the parallel 

competitive announcement was illegal in this case. 

For the General Engineer vacancy, Mr. Price further 

disputes the Board’s factual findings of his qualifications 

compared to those of the selected candidate. The Board’s 

findings were supported by substantial evidence. The 

evidence showed that Mr. Price did not have a bachelor’s 

degree and that the selected candidate had a bachelor’s 

degree in electrical engineering and a master’s degree in 

manufacturing. Compare J.A. 185 to J.A. 178. The fact 

that both Mr. Price and the selected candidate both 

received a rating of 100.00 on the merit promotion list of 

qualified candidates did not mean there were no further 

qualifications that would distinguish one candidate from 

another. Mr. Price also argues that the administrative 

judge erred in denying Mr. Price’s discovery motions and 

in admitting the testimony of agency witnesses because 

they were given “after the fact.” We have no basis to 

reverse the Board or the administrative judge on Mr. 

Price’s discovery grievances because Mr. Price has not 

shown what discovery he was denied and how the requested evidence was relevant. Likewise, Mr. Price has 

not shown why the challenged “after the fact” testimonies 

were wrongly admitted. 

Case: 15-3014 Document: 29-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/07/2015
PRICE v. HUD 7

The scope of our review of the Board’s decision is limited by statute. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Within this limited 

scope of review, we discern no reversible error.1 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs. 

1 On appeal, Mr. Price filed an “Objection to Respondent’s Untimely Filing,” which was treated as a

motion to strike HUD’s corrected informal brief, and a 

motion for sanctions for filing and service of HUD’s corrected informal brief. ECF Nos. 17, 23. We do not find, 

however, that HUD’s actions warrant sanctions. We 

therefore deny Mr. Price’s motions to strike and for sanctions. On April 27, 2015, Mr. Price moved to file a supplemental brief. ECF No. 25. This supplemental brief 

was not motivated by any late disclosure of evidence or 

legal theory by HUD. Rather, Mr. Price sought to assert

additional arguments under the category rating system in 

5 U.S.C. § 3319 based on five HUD vacancies that were 

publicly advertised on the USAJobs website. Because Mr. 

Price could have included those arguments under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3319 in his original appeal brief, we deny his motion file 

a supplemental brief. Even if we were to consider Mr. 

Price’s supplemental brief, however, it would not change

the fact that the General Engineer position was filled 

through the merit promotion announcement under which 

he was considered. Mr. Price’s supplemental brief also 

would not show that VEOA authorizes any veterans’ 

rating bonus in his application through a merit promotion 

announcement. Therefore, the arguments in Mr. Price’s 

supplemental brief would not affect our affirmance of the 

Board’s decision.

 

Case: 15-3014 Document: 29-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/07/2015