N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ ELMER E. CAMPBELL, J R., 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

______________________

E LMER E. C AMPBELL , J R

. , Vallejo, California, pro se.

L INDSEY S CHRECKENGOST , Office of the General Cou nsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by B RYAN G. P OLISUK

.CAMPBELL v. MSPB 2

N ICHOLAS J ABBOUR , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by S TUART F. D ELERY , B RYANT G. S NEE , C LAUDIA B URKE

.

______________________

Before N EWMAN , L OURIE , and D YK , Circu it Judges.

N EWMAN , Circuit Judge.

Mr. Elmer E. Campbell , Jr. appeals the deci sion 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 co nstructive suspension nor an appe a lable 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 A ct of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This is the second MSPB decision adverse to Mr. Campbell . T he first decision was appealed to the Fed eral Circuit; we affirmed the dismissal of the constructive suspension c laim but remanded for consideration of

“ jurisdiction based on a fur lough 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 h olding that the Postal Service’s actions were permitted by t he C ollective Bargaining Agreement Between the Am erican Postal Workers Union, AFL

- CIO, and the Postal Serv ice, 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 appe al.CAMPBELL v. MSPB 3

Meanwhile, the National Postal Mail Handlers Union had initiated a grievance on Mr. Campbell’s behal f. In a letter to the Board, Mr. Campbell stated that “ the issues in his grievances are the same presented in [his] initia l petition before the Board . . . .” Intervenor’ s Br. at A12. T hat grievance was decided on January 29, 2013, by settlement agreement awarding Mr. Campbell full salary and benefits for the period at issue

, from Nov ember 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. T he MSPB stated “the settlement agreement may provide full relief to Mr. Campbell as it relates to this matter . .

. ,” Resp ondent ’s’ Brief Question 3 n.2, and the s ettlement a greement wa s 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. , 1 3– 3166, ECF No. 39 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. In response

, Mr. Campbell reiterate d his arg uments 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, consider ed whether the settlement agreement provided full relief to Mr. Campbell

. Resp’t’s Resp. at 1 , ECF No. 40

. The Postal Service r esponded that the settlement agreement “covered all claims raised by Mr. Campbell in the board proceeding,” Intervenor’s Resp. at 2, and th at “this matter has been settled; ther efore, 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 establish ed any remai ning controversy. Acc ordingly, this appeal isCAMPBELL v. MSPB 4

DISMISSED

No costs.