Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03172/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Mary E. Purifoy
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MARY E. PURIFOY,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3172

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-3443-12-0204-B-1.

______________________ 

Decided: November 6, 2015

______________________ 

 MARY E. PURIFOY, Cantonment, FL, pro se.

 KATRINA LEDERER, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3172 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/06/2015
2 PURIFOY v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Ms. Mary Purifoy appeals the final decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing her

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because Ms. Purifoy has 

failed to satisfy her burden of proving that the Board had 

jurisdiction over her appeal, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Purifoy, a GS-7 Management Assistant with the 

Department of the Navy (“Agency”), applied for a GS-9 

Management Analyst position in July 2009. Ms. Purifoy 

was not referred to the selecting official for consideration, 

and another candidate was eventually selected for the 

position. In November 2009, the Agency notified 

Ms. Purifoy that her non-referral was due to an administrative error and offered her priority consideration for the 

next suitable position. Ms. Purifoy then filed an equal 

employment opportunity (“EEO”) complaint with the 

Agency, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and 

sex when the Agency allegedly manipulated the qualification criteria for the vacancy to avoid referring her application to the selecting official. The Agency investigated 

Ms. Purifoy’s complaint and issued a final agency decision

finding no discrimination. 

Ms. Purifoy then filed an employment practice appeal

with the Board, challenging the Agency’s recruitment 

process for the Management Analyst position. Ms. Purifoy alleged that the Agency had violated a “basic requirement” for employment practices of the federal 

government, as prescribed in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103. Specifically, she alleged that the Agency failed to use “professionally-developed job analyses” to identify important 

factors for evaluating candidates and further failed to 

maintain a merit promotion plan in selecting candidates. 

See 5 C.F.R. §§ 300.103(b), 335.102. She also alleged that 

the Agency had changed the qualification criteria in the 

Case: 15-3172 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/06/2015
PURIFOY v. MSPB 3

position’s vacancy announcement to exclude her from 

consideration. 

The Board ultimately dismissed Ms. Purifoy’s employment practice appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The 

Board noted that it has jurisdiction “over an employment 

practice appeal pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a) when 

two conditions are met: (1) the appeal concerns an employment practice that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is involved in administering; and (2) the 

employment practice must be alleged to have violated one 

of the ‘basic requirements’ for employment practices set 

forth in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103.” J.A. 9. The Board determined that Ms. Purifoy’s claims constituted a challenge to 

an individual selection process for a particular agency 

position and thus did not raise an employment practice 

claim appealable to the Board. On her allegation that the 

Agency failed to maintain a merit promotion plan and 

failed to use professionally-developed job analyses in 

violation of 5 C.F.R. § 300.103, the Board found that 

Ms. Purifoy did not allege that OPM was involved in 

administering the alleged practices at issue. The Board 

thus denied her petition for review and dismissed the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Ms. Purifoy appealed to this court, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

Whether the Board has jurisdiction to hear an appeal 

is a question of law reviewed de novo. Whiteman v. Dep’t 

of Transp., 688 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

Ms. Purifoy first argues that the Board had jurisdiction to hear her appeal because the Agency’s “employment 

practice” violated § 300.103(a) in “developing key words” 

for searching candidate resumes that “were not based 

upon a professionally developed job analysis.” Pet. Br. 8. 

As the government notes, however, Ms. Purifoy “does not 

Case: 15-3172 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/06/2015
4 PURIFOY v. MSPB

appear to allege that the use of key words led to her 

application not being processed correctly.” Gov’t Br. 16. 

We agree. The record reflects that Ms. Purifoy’s nonreferral was due to an error in the Agency’s application 

processing system. It was not as a result of an “employment practice” within the meaning of § 300.104. We have 

repeatedly held that, for the Board to have jurisdiction, it 

is “necessary that the challenged employment practice 

have been applied to the applicant as the basis for the 

adverse hiring decision.” Dow v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 590 

F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As such, we agree that 

the Board lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Purifoy’s appeal. 

Ms. Purifoy also alleges that the Board had jurisdiction over her claim that the “agency’s failure to maintain 

an active Merit Promotion Plan and develop selection 

criteria based on a professionally developed job analysis” 

violated § 300.103(b). Pet. Br. 8. Ms. Purifoy appears to 

assert that the Board erred in concluding that OPM must 

be involved in administering the employment practice for 

the Board to have jurisdiction. Pet. Br. 7-8. (citing 

Prewitt v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 133 F.3d 885, 888 

(Fed. Cir. 1998)). Ms. Purifoy argues that “an agency’s 

misapplication of a valid OPM requirement may constitute an employment practice” and that “OPM need not be 

immediately involved in the practice in question.” 

Pet. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). 

Ms. Purifoy’s argument, however, rests on a misunderstanding of Prewitt. In Prewitt, we held that “OPM’s 

involvement in an agency’s selection process may be 

sufficient to characterize a non-selection action by that 

agency as a practice applied by OPM” only where OPM’s 

involvement in the selection process is “significant.” 

Prewitt, 133 F.3d at 888. As the Board observed, however, Ms. Purifoy “did not allege that OPM was involved in 

administering the alleged practices at issue or that the 

agency’s alleged wrongful actions were based upon any 

regulation or standard promulgated by OPM.” J.A. 10. 

Case: 15-3172 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/06/2015
PURIFOY v. MSPB 5

That is, Ms. Purifoy has not satisfied her burden of establishing Board jurisdiction with respect to the employment 

practices because she “has not shown that OPM was 

involved in the administration of [the] practices.” Prewitt, 

133 F.3d at 887–88; see also Dowd v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., 745 F.2d 650, 651 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“[S]ince OPM 

played no part in the [employment practice applied] to 

petitioner by the [agency], OPM had not applied any 

employment practice to petitioner.” (emphasis omitted)). 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the Board’s decision dismissing 

Ms. Purifoy’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 15-3172 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/06/2015