NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3044 PHILLIP W. SEDGWICK, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.
Phillip W. Sedgwick , of Phoenix, Arizona, pro se. Sara B. Rearden , Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washi ngton, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were B. Chad Bungard , General Counsel, and Rosa M. Koppel , Deputy General Counsel. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3044 PHILLIP W. SEDGWICK, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.
Appeal from the Merit Syst ems Protection Board in ca se no. DE3443070158-I-1.

__________________ _________

DECIDED: May 7, 2008

__________________ _________ Before RADER, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. The Merit Systems Protection Board dism issed Mr. Phillip S edgwick’s appeal of an alleged failure by the World Bank to accord Mr. Sedgwick ve terans’ employment preference under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). Because the World Bank is not an agency of the United States government and therefore is both outside the MSPB’s jurisdicti on and also not subject to the VEOA, this court affirms.I Mr. Sedgwick served on active duty with t he armed forces of the United States from October 4, 1966 to Ma y 7, 1969, and was honorably di scharged. More recently, Mr. Sedgwick applied for several jobs with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly known as the World Bank, but to no avail. He also did not receive funding from the World Bank for a proposed overseas project. Some time before December 19, 2006, Mr . Sedgwick filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, asserti ng that the World Bank had violated his rights as a preference-eligible veteran under the VEOA. The Departm ent of Labor found no merit in Mr. Sedgwick’s claim because the World B ank is not a federal agency and thus not required to give veterans preference. Mr. Sedgwick appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board sustained the di smissal of Mr. Sedgwick’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
II This court reviews the MSPB’s jurisd ictional judgments without deference. Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 199 5). Here, the issue is whether 5 U.S.C. § 3 330a, which governs admin istrative redress for preference-eligible individuals, applies to the World Bank. Su bsections 3330a(a)(1) and 3330a(d) give the Board jurisdiction to consider claims that an “agency” has violated the rights of a preference-eligible veteran, but do not define “agency.” Nonetheless, this court has described 5 U.S.C. § 3330a as “ pertain[ing] to employment in the federal governmentwide civil service system” and offering redr ess where an “agency has violated [an] individual’s rights under any statute or regula tion relating to veterans’ preference for

2008-3044 2employment with the Unit ed States government.” Scarnati v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 344 F.3d 1246, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The World Bank is not part of the “feder al government-wide civil service system,” nor is it even part of the Un ited States government. Inste ad, as its name suggests, the World Bank is an international organization. President Truman designated the Bank as such in 1946. Exec. Order No. 9751, 3 C.F.R. 558 (1943-1948 Co mp.). Any passing references to the World Bank as a federal agency do not help Mr. Sedgwick’s case. Likewise, the partial funding of the World B ank by the United States does not make the World Bank a “de facto” f ederal agency, or some “hybrid” of an international organization and a federal agency. Indeed, our sister circuits have routinely recognized that the World Bank is an international organization, not a federal agency. See, e.g. , Defenders of W ildlife v. Hodel , 851 F.2d 1035, 1041 (8th Cir . 1988) (“Several of the projects were funded by the World B ank, which is not a federal agency.”); Mendaro v. World Bank , 717 F.2d 610, 611 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly re ferred to as the World Bank, is an international financial institution whose pur poses include assisting the development of its member nations’ territories, promoting an d supplementing private foreign investment, and promoting long range balanced grow th in international trade.”). Because the World Bank is not a federal agency, the M SPB lacked jurisdiction to consider whether Mr. Sedgwick’s asserted ve terans’ preference rights were violated. Moreover, the World Bank is not subject to the VEOA. The Board thus properly dismissed Mr. Sedgwick’s appeal.

2008-3044 32008-3044 4 AFFIRMED

COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.