NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ELMER E. CAMPBELL, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

AND

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2013-3166

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF0752100331-M-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 12, 2015

______________________ 

ELMER E. CAMPBELL, JR., Vallejo, California, pro se. 

LINDSEY SCHRECKENGOST, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK.
2 CAMPBELL v. MSPB

NICHOLAS JABBOUR, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by 

STUART F. DELERY, BRYANT G. SNEE, CLAUDIA BURKE. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Mr. Elmer E. Campbell, Jr. appeals the decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), holding that 

the action of the United States Postal Service in placing 

Mr. Campbell in reduced duty status was neither a constructive suspension nor an appealable furlough. He had 

alleged that the Postal Service’s denial of eight hours per 

day of light-duty work was a constructive suspension 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512 and 7513, and also that it 

violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This is the second MSPB decision adverse to Mr. 

Campbell. The first decision was appealed to the Federal 

Circuit; we affirmed the dismissal of the constructive 

suspension claim but remanded for consideration of 

“jurisdiction based on a furlough of thirty days or less.” 

Campbell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 456 Fed. Appx. 902 (Fed. 

Cir. 2011). On remand the MSPB adhered to its prior 

decision, also holding that the Postal Service’s actions 

were permitted by the Collective Bargaining Agreement

Between the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 

and the Postal Service, available at

http://www.apwu.org/sites/apwu/files/resourcefiles/APWU

%20Contract%202010-2015.pdf (“Light duty assignments 

may be established from part-time hours, to consist of 8 

hours or less in a service day and 40 hours or less in a 

service week.”); Campbell v. U.S. Postal Serv., 119 

M.S.P.R. 489 (M.S.P.B. June 13, 2013). This is the MSPB 

decision now on appeal.
CAMPBELL v. MSPB 3

Meanwhile, the National Postal Mail Handlers Union 

had initiated a grievance on Mr. Campbell’s behalf. In a 

letter to the Board, Mr. Campbell stated that “the issues 

in his grievances are the same presented in [his] initial 

petition before the Board . . . .” Intervenor’s Br. at A12. 

That grievance was decided on January 29, 2013, by 

settlement agreement awarding Mr. Campbell full salary 

and benefits for the period at issue, from November 12, 

2009 to Mr. Campbell’s retirement on March 2, 2012. 

USPS Case No. F06M–1FC 10221922 (decision January 

29, 2013); J.A. 12–23. The MSPB stated “the settlement 

agreement may provide full relief to Mr. Campbell as it 

relates to this matter . . . ,” Respondent’s’ Brief Question 3 

n.2, and the settlement agreement was contained in the 

Joint Appendix, J.A. 13. 

Seeking clarification, we asked the parties whether 

this appeal should be dismissed as moot. Campbell v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 13–3166, ECF No. 39 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). In response, Mr. Campbell reiterated his arguments on the merits and argued that the settlement was 

inadequate. Acknowledgement of Ct.’s Order 2, ECF No. 

42. The MSPB response “[took] no position on whether 

the appeal should be dismissed as moot,” stating that the 

MSPB had not, in the proceedings below, considered 

whether the settlement agreement provided full relief to 

Mr. Campbell. Resp’t’s Resp. at 1, ECF No. 40. 

The Postal Service responded that the settlement 

agreement “covered all claims raised by Mr. Campbell in 

the board proceeding,” Intervenor’s Resp. at 2, and that

“this matter has been settled; therefore, dismissal is 

appropriate,” Intervenor’s Resp. at 1, ECF No. 41. 

The settlement agreement awards Mr. Campbell back 

pay and benefits from November 12, 2009 to March 2, 

2012, and resolves the controversy in question. J.A. 13. 

Mr. Campbell’s response has not established any remaining controversy. Accordingly, this appeal is 
4 CAMPBELL v. MSPB

DISMISSED

No costs.