Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01667/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01667-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cyril L. Edwards
Petitioner
United States Postal Service
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CYRIL L. EDWARDS,

Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1667

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0752-15-0030-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: October 12, 2016

______________________ 

CYRIL L. EDWARDS, Rochester, NY, pro se.

TANYA B. KOENIG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., BRIAN A.

MIZOGUCHI; MORGAN E. REHRIG, Office of General Counsel, United States Postal Service, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 16-1667 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/12/2016
2 EDWARDS v. USPS

Before PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Cyril Edwards appeals the final decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), which affirmed an

administrative judge’s (“AJ”) initial decision to uphold the 

U.S. Postal Service’s (“USPS”) demotion of Mr. Edwards 

for improper conduct. Edwards v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 

NY-0752-15-0030-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 5, 2016) (Resp’t’s 

App’x 8–22). After the parties completed briefing in this 

appeal, the Government filed a motion notifying this court 

of subsequent developments related to the penalty imposed upon Mr. Edwards. See Resp’t’s Mot. for Leave to 

File Addendum. Because these developments necessarily 

inform whether the USPS imposed an appropriate penalty on Mr. Edwards, we vacate the MSPB’s decision and 

remand with instructions to make further factual findings 

in the first instance. 

BACKGROUND

I. Relevant Facts and Proceedings Before the MSPB

Mr. Edwards was employed by the USPS as Supervisor of Maintenance Operations in the Rochester Processing and Distribution Center in Rochester, NY. On 

March 17, 2014, Mr. Edwards reported to work for an 

eight hour shift and found that there was no work for him 

following a scheduling error. Mr. Edwards’s supervisors 

told him he could leave before his shift ended, and he left 

after one and a half hours on duty. Mr. Edwards did not 

submit a form requesting leave and later told the acting 

supervisor overseeing attendance to credit him with eight 

hours of work for March 17, 2014. 

The USPS shortly thereafter began investigating Mr. 

Edwards’s actions, and a pre-disciplinary interview was 

held on April 9, 2014. The USPS determined that Mr. 

Edwards should not have received credit for time worked 

Case: 16-1667 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/12/2016
EDWARDS v. USPS 3

when he left on March 17 and charged him with improper 

conduct, proposing as punishment a reduction in grade 

and pay. 

Following an oral hearing, a deciding official (“DO”) at 

the USPS issued a decision letter upholding the USPS’s 

proposed reduction in grade and pay as a result of Mr. 

Edwards’s improper conduct. Resp’t’s App’x 110. The DO 

determined that, inter alia, Mr. Edwards’s supervisory 

status weighed heavily against him in determining an 

appropriate sanction and that he “[could not] be trusted to 

ensure accurate time keeping practices for a group of 

subordinate employees if [he could not] be trusted with 

[his] own time keeping responsibilities.” Id. at 114. 

Mr. Edwards subsequently petitioned the MSPB for 

review. An AJ affirmed the DO’s decision and found that

the USPS proved by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. 

Edwards engaged in improper conduct and that the 

penalty of a reduction in grade and pay promoted the 

efficiency of the service, as required under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7513(a) (2012).1 Id. at 38. The AJ also found that the 

USPS demonstrated that the penalty imposed was appropriate in light of the twelve factors set forth in Douglas v. 

Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.B. 313, 331–32 (1981). 

Id. In so doing, the AJ rejected Mr. Edwards’s claims that 

he received disparate treatment relative to three other 

employees who received only Letters of Warning or no 

penalty. Id. at 36. The AJ instead relied upon the penalty imposed on Ms. Robin Swan, Mr. Edwards’s supervisor 

who similarly received a reduction in grade and pay for 

 

1 Section 7513(a) provides that “an agency may take 

an action . . . against an employee only for such cause as 

will promote the efficiency of the service.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7513(a).

Case: 16-1667 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/12/2016
4 EDWARDS v. USPS

leaving an eight hour shift without working four hours,2

in assessing the appropriateness of the penalty imposed

on Mr. Edwards. Id. at 37. 

Mr. Edwards appealed the AJ’s initial decision to the 

full MSPB, which affirmed the AJ’s decision. See id. at 

22. The MSPB modified the initial decision with respect 

to its findings on whether Mr. Edwards was subject to a

disparate penalty, citing different reasons to support the 

ultimate conclusion that none of the three comparators 

proffered by Mr. Edwards were relevant. Id. at 16. The 

MSPB also rejected Mr. Edwards’s assertion that the AJ

improperly considered Ms. Swan as the sole relevant 

comparator. Id. at 17. 

Mr. Edwards timely petitioned this court for review. 

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

(2012). 

II. Developments on Appeal

While briefing remained ongoing in this appeal, the 

MSPB mitigated Ms. Swan’s penalty from reduction in 

grade and pay to a thirty day suspension, finding that the 

penalty of demotion “exceed[ed] the tolerable limits of 

reasonableness.” Swan v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. NY-0752-

15-0020-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 7, 2016) (Resp’t’s Addendum 

13). The Government later filed a Motion for Leave to 

File an Addendum including Swan “in an effort at fairness in this pro se case.” Resp’t’s Mot. for Leave to File 

Addendum 1. Both parties discuss Swan in their briefs. 

See Resp’t’s Br. 18; Pet’r’s Reply 1. 

 

2 Section H.2b of the USPS’s Handbook F-401, Supervisor’s Guide to Scheduling and Premium Pay (Aug. 

2000) states: “Nonbargaining exempt employees who 

intend to be absent for more than 4 hours on a workday 

should request a full day of leave.” Resp’t’s App’x 127. 

Case: 16-1667 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/12/2016
EDWARDS v. USPS 5

DISCUSSION

Mr. Edwards alleges that the MSPB committed various legal and factual errors when it upheld the USPS’s 

decision to reduce his grade and pay. See Pet’r’s Br. 7–27. 

As an initial matter, however, we first must address 

whether the MSPB’s recent decision in Swan necessitates 

a remand in the instant appeal. We find that it does.

We generally will not review extra-record evidence not 

presented to the MSPB. See Wilkes v. Dep’t of Veterans 

Affairs, 644 F. App’x 1015, 1019–20 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 

(Wallach, J., concurring); see also Oshiver v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., 896 F.2d 540, 542 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Resp’t’s Br. 18

n.3 (“Although we recognize that this [c]ourt does not 

generally review evidence which was not presented to the 

[MSPB] . . . we include as an addendum the MSPB’s 

initial decision for Manager Swan . . . .”). However, when 

factual information necessary to a final decision was 

unavailable during the administrative proceeding and 

later becomes available or changes while on appeal, we 

have found it appropriate to vacate and remand the 

administrative decision under review. See, e.g., Williams

v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F.3d 1365, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 

2009) (vacating and remanding to the MSPB following 

Government counsel’s admission of new evidence related 

to potential disparate treatment of a comparator that was 

not on record); Gregory v. U.S. Postal Serv., 30 F. App’x 

955, 957–58 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (remanding to the MSPB 

after a grievance pending at the time of the initial decision was decided in appellant’s favor such that “further 

assessment of the correct penalty” was warranted).

A remand is appropriate in the instant appeal because 

the MSPB necessarily must consider Swan to ascertain 

the appropriateness of the penalty imposed upon Mr. 

Edwards. In Douglas, the MSPB set forth the relevant 

factors to consider when assessing the appropriateness of 

a penalty in an administrative proceeding related to 

Case: 16-1667 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/12/2016
6 EDWARDS v. USPS

adverse employment action. See 5 M.S.P.B. at 331–32. 

One of those factors asks the DO to consider the “consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other 

employees for the same or similar offenses.” Id. at 332. 

The MSPB has recognized that this factor “is of sufficient 

weight that it may warrant an outcome different from 

that of the initial decision.” Lewis v. Dep’t of Veterans 

Affairs, 2009 M.S.P.B. 96, ¶ 8 (2009). In particular, the 

MSPB has stated that, in the case of alleged disparate 

treatment between comparable employees, “the agency 

must prove a legitimate reason for the difference in 

treatment by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. We 

agree and therefore remand so that the MSPB may reassess Mr. Edwards’s penalty in light of Swan. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is

VACATED AND REMANDED

Case: 16-1667 Document: 25-2 Page: 6 Filed: 10/12/2016