The Ho n. P atr ic k J. Dug g an, Uni ted Stat es Di str ic t J udg e for the E ast er n D is tr ict of * Mi chi g an, s it ti ng by

des ig nati on. NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0499n .06 Fi led : A ug ust14, 2008 07- 3947 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
T HO MA S Mc GRAD Y, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. UN ITED STATES POS TAL SERVIC E, Defendant -A ppel lee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE NO RTH ER N DI STRIC T OF OH IO

Before: D AU GH TREY and MO OR E, C ircui t J udg es; D UG GAN , D is tr ic t J udg e. *
PE R CUR IA M. F o r me r P o s t a l S e r v i c e e mp l o y e e Th o ma s M c G ra d y a p p e a l s t he dis tr ic t c our

t’ s d is mis sal of his decl arator y jud g ment act ion , in w hic h he soug ht a ru li ng that t h e P o s t a l S e rvi c e (U S P S ) h a d fa il e d t o cr e d ith im p ro p e rl y wit h se rv i c e p o i n t s re f le c t ive of hi s s tatus as a di sabl ed v eteran, i n v iol ati on of the Veteran’ s E mploy ment O ppor tuni ti es Actof 1998 (V EOA or Act ), 5 U. S.C

. § 3330a. Mc Grady cl aims thatthe dis tr ic t c our t er re d in dismissing his claim for lack of subje ct ma tter j urisdiction , cont end ing ( 1) thatbeca use the reli ef he soug ht w as eq uit abl e ra ther than l eg al, so v ereig n i mmunity w as w aiv ed and (2 ) that the credi ti ng er ro r cons ti tuted a cont inu ing v iol ati on re mediab le under the VEOA

. W e c oncl ude t hat s ov ereig n i mmunity w as improper ly

i nv oked in thi s c ase but that the07- 3947

Mc Gr ady v. US PS

- 2 - dis tr ic t c our

t c or re ctl y

dete rmi ned t hat s ubj ectmatte r jur is dicti on c oul d notbe e sta bli shed becau se the mi sc alc ula ti on of ser v ic e poi nts in McG ra dy ’s ca se predated the e ff ect iv e dat e of the Ac t and the cont inu ing v iol ati on doctr ine w as ina ppl ic abl e. The re c o rd e s t a b l i s h e s t h a tM c G ra d y s e r v e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s N a vy a n d w as honorabl y

di sc harg ed after

he w as inj ured i n the co urse of his mil it ar y se rv ic e. In 19 81, h e took a c ompeti ti v e ex aminat ion for e mploy ment w it h the US PS, at w hic h ti me he w as ra ted as 10 percentdi sabl ed by the Veterans’ Admi nis trati on. He broug ht hi s dis abi li ty st atus to the a ttent ion of the U SPS dur ing the appl ic ati on proces s b ut, apparentl y throug h a c ler ic al er ro r, i t w as not p ro per ly recorded. M cGrady

w as not hired bythe US PS un ti l 1984, w hen he w as appoi nted to a career pos it ion as a po sta l dis tr ibu ti on c ler k.
In 19 96, t he U SPS notified M cGrady that“ an admi nis trati v e er ro r mayhav e been ma de” in his perso nne l file be cause he w as credite d w ith on ly f iv e preferen ce po ints as a
v eteran, i nst ead of the ten point s to w hic h he w as enti tl ed as a dis abled v eteran. In 20 05, after v olu ntar

y se parati on from t he U SPS, M cGrady fil ed a compl ain t ag ain st the p ost al ser v ic e in dist ri ct cour

t seeki ng declarator

y rel ief under 28 U .S.C . §§ 2201- 02, c lai ming that the a cti ons of the USP S v iol ated his rig hts as a dis abl ed v eteran unde r 5 U .S.C . § 2108,
w hic h i s t he leg is lat iv e sour ce of the preferenti al- poi nts sy ste m; under 5 C.F .R . § 332.401 , w hic h req uires that federal personne l w ho are v eterans be ac corded proper c re dit ; and under 5 U .S.C . § 2302( b) , w hic h prohi bit s a U SPS employ ee from t aki ng a pe rs onnel act ion thatw oul d v iol ate a v eterans’ pre ference re q uirement. Spec ific all y , M cGrady so ug ht07- 3947

Mc Gr ady v. US PS

- 3 - a “d e c la ra t io n o f

h is ri g h t s i n h i s e m p lo ym e n tre la t io n s h ip wit h t h e US P S ” a n d in ju n c t ive re li ef in t he form o f “retrospecti v e re- cal cul ati on of [hi s] pensi on, v acat ion , and othe r econ om ic bene f its arising f rom h is fo rmer em ploymen t w ith the U.S. Posta l Serv ice.” The US PS mov e d t o di smi ss for l ack of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on and ass erted sov ereig n i mmunity

. In respon se, pl ain ti ff cl aimed to be protec ted under both the V EOA and the Adm inistrative Proced ure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 -59. T he d is t ri c tco urt dis mis sed the c omplai nt on al ter nati v e g ro unds, hol din g , first, tha t i t w as bar re d by sov ereig n i mmunity

bec ause “ w hat the plai nti ff w ants is money , not a s impl e dec larati on th ath e ha s b ee n w ron g ed .” Th e di s tr i c t c ou rt fur th er hel d th atthe V EO A di d no t be c om e eff ect iv e unt il Oc tober 31, 1998, and is not retroact iv e, t hus affordin g the pla int iff no reli ef for an er ro r made i n 1981, of w hic h h e h a d o ff ic ial noti ce in 1996. The c our t r ule d tha t
w hil e the effec ts of t he mis cal cul ati on mig ht ha v e c onti nued pa st the e ff ect iv e dat e of the VEOA , t he “co nti nui ng vi ola ti on doctr ine ” w as ina ppl ic abl e i n thi s mat ter , rely ing on Bell v. Ohi o St ate U niv er sity, 351 F. 3d 240, 247 (6 th Ci r. 2003) , becau se the u nder ly ing ac ti v ity it sel f had not cont inu ed but w as compl eted in 1981. F ina ll y , c it ing 39 U .S.C . § 410( a) and Ryon v. O’

Neill , 894 F.2d 19 9, 20 4 (6th Cir. 199 0), the district court noted tha t the APAis ina ppl ic abl e to the U SPS and t hat rev iew of pe rs onnel act ion s is not av ail abl e under the APA or othe r g eneral jur is dicti on s tatut es. On app eal, the p laintif

f conte nds th at th e district court’s jurisdiction ca n be uph eld on th e bas is of the D ecl arator y Ju dg ment Act, 28 U .S.C . §§ 2201- 02, a nd th e federa l07- 3947

Mc Gr ady v. US PS

- 4 - q uest ion st atute , 28 U. S.C

. § 1331. Unfor tunat ely for the pla int iff, nei ther of those sta tutes creates an indep endent r ig ht of acti on that w oul d entit le the plai nti ff to re li ef. M oreov er , he now appears t o c onced e tha t the VEOA is not ret ro act iv e, rel y ing inst ead on the a rg ument made i n the di str ic t c our t t hat t he v iol ati on i n thi s c ase w as a c onti nui ng one that broug ht the s tatut or

y v iol ati on w it hin the re ach of the VE OA.
“W e re vie w de nov

o a d ist ric t co u rt ’s g ra nt of a mot ion to dis mis s o n the bas is of subj ect matter jur is dicti on. W hen a defendant mov es to dis mis s for l ack of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on, t he pl ainti ff has the burden of prov ing j ur is dicti on i n order to sur v iv e the mo tion. ” W

isecarver v. Moore , 489 F .3d 7 47, 7 49 ( 6th C ir . 200 7 ) (in te rnal ci tati ons and q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o mi t t e d )

. W e co n c u r i n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n t h a tt h e p l a i n t i ff did not dis c h a rg e h i s b u rd e n i n t h i s re g a rd , a l t h o u g h i t a p p e a rs t h a t d i s t r i c t c o u rtw as in c o r re c twit h re ga rd t o it s ru li n g o n t h e ri gh to f t h e US P S t o cl a im so ve re ig n im m u n it y, w hic h w as sta tutor il y

w aiv ed by Con g re ss in 39 U. S.C . § 401( 1)

. See Fr anchi se Tax Bd. v. United State s Posta l Serv. , 467 U .S. 512, 518- 20 ( 1984)

. Nevertheles s , the district court w as correct in ho lding that th e plain tif f cann ot rely on t he VEOA to establ i s h j ur i s di c ti on i n th i s c as e. A s t he c ou rt no te d, t he A c t be c am e e f f e ctiv e on Oct ober

31, 1998; itse t up a s tatut or y sc heme for deal ing w it h al leg ed
v iolation s of

the v ete rans’ preferen ce sy stem t hatreplaced a less forma l arrangeme nt in use under

ear li er preferenc e s chemes

. By it s ow n ter ms, the A ct is not re troact iv e. See gen erally

5 U .S.C . §§ 2108, 3309, 3330a. Inde ed, the c ur re nt ad mini strati v e req uirements07- 3947

Mc Gr ady v. US PS

- 5 - that must be ex haust ed pr ior to commenc ement of an act ion in dis tr ic t cour t mandate the fili ng of a c omplai nt w it h the Sec re tar y of Labor w it hin 60 d ay s o f an all eg ed v iol ati on and the fil ing of an appeal to t he M er itSy ste ms Protec ti on Boa rd w it hin a s peci fied per iod i f no re sol uti on res ult s from thatco mplai nt. See 5 U. S

. C. § § 3 3 3 0 a (a )( 2 )( A ), (d )( 1 ). Ob vio u s ly, becau se the n ew

procedu re di d notg o i n to o p e ra ti on unt il 1998, there w oul d be no poss ibl e w ay

to meet t he s tatut or

y l imi ts if the v iol ati on i n q uest ion oc cur re d i n 1981, ev en if w e w ere to hol d tha t t he 60- day per iod ran from t he dat e of noti ficat io n i n 1996. See Lapuh v . Mer it Sy s. Pr ot. Bd. , 284 F.3d 12 77, 128 0-81 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The di str ic t c our

t was als o c or re ct in re jecti ng the pla int iff’s c onti nui ng v iol ati on theor y . As the d efendant not es, thattheo ry co nst it utes an e x cept ion “ to t he us ual r ule that statu tes of

limitation s a re t rig gered at th e time the alleged [v iolation ] occurred .” Alexander v. Local 496, Labor

er s’ Int ’ l Uni on , 177 F .3d 3 94, 408 (6th Ci r. 1999). “ [W ]here the re i s a n ong oin g , c onti nuous se ri es of dis cr imi nator y acts, theym ay

be chal len g ed in their

enti re ty as long as one of tho se discrimina tory acts fa lls w ithin th e limitat ions pe riod.” Haithco ck
v. Fr ank , 958 F.2d 6 7 1 , 6 7 7 ( 6 t h Cir. 199 2). Th e the orydoe s not extend to the mere effec ts of a di sc re te act , w here the act it sel f doe s not fall w it hin the li mita ti on per iod

. See Ledbetter

v. Good year T ir e & Rub ber

C o. , 127 S. Ct. 216 2, 21 69 (20 07).
For the rea sons se t outabo v e, w e up hold the district cou rt ’s d e t e rmina tion th at it lac ked subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on i n thi s matter and AFF IR M the jud g ment entered by the dis tr ic t c our

t di smi ss ing the compl ain t on that basi s.