Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/558-f-3d-137-594940314
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:52:51+00:00

Document:
Party Name: Vincent Curtis CONYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gale D. ROSSIDES, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator, Transportation Security Administration, United States Department of Homeland Security,[*] Defendant-Appellee.
Gale D. ROSSIDES, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator, Transportation Security Administration, United States Department of Homeland Security,[*]Defendant-Appellee.
Vincent Curtis Conyers, Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
Thomas A. McFarland, Assistant United States Attorney (Varuni Nelson, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Central Islip, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: KEARSE, RAGGI, and LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Vincent Curtis Conyers, proceeding pro se, appeals from a July 30, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sandra J. Feuerstein, Judge ), dismissing his complaint against the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (" TSA" ), arising out of defendant's 2002 refusal to hire plaintiff as an airport security screener. We agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act claim, and we hold that defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings with respect to plaintiff's Veterans Employment Opportunities Act and constitutional claims. We therefore affirm.
We briefly review the relevant statutory framework before discussing the factual background and legal merits of Conyers's appeal.
into guided bombs for strikes against the United States," Congress identified a need for " a fundamental change in the way [the United States] approaches the task of ensuring the safety and security of the civil air transportation system." H.R.Rep. No. 107-296, at 53 (2001) (Conf.Rep.), reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 589, 590. Accordingly, on November 19, 2001, it enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (" ATSA" ), Pub.L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001) (codified principally in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.). The ATSA " broadly expand[ed] the government's control over, and active role in, aviation security" through the creation of the TSA. Kent C. Krause, " Putting the Transportation Security Administration in Historical Context," 68 J. Air L. & Com. 233, 244 (2003).
The TSA is headed by an Administrator,1 whom Congress has made " responsible for security in all modes of transportation, including," most notably, " civil aviation security." 49 U.S.C. § 114(d). The Administrator is required, inter alia, to " provide for the screening of all passengers and property ... that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation." Id. § 44901(a).2 To ensure that this mandate was carried out promptly, the ATSA required the Administrator, " [n]ot later than 1 year after" the passage of the Act, to " deploy at all airports in the United States where screening is required ... a sufficient number of Federal screeners, Federal Security Managers, Federal security personnel, and Federal law enforcement officers to conduct the screening of all passengers and property" as required by statute. Id. § 44901 note. The instant action concerns an application for a security screener position filed by plaintiff Conyers during this critical one-year period.
[t]he personnel management system established by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under [49 U.S.C.] section 40122 shall apply to employees of the Transportation Security Administration, or, subject to the requirements of such section, the [TSA Administrator] may make such modifications to the personnel management system with respect to such employees as [he] considers appropriate, such as adopting aspects of other personnel systems of the Department of Transportation.
and Employees" -" shall not apply" to the FAA's personnel management system, with certain explicitly listed exceptions, including provisions concerning whistleblower protection, veterans' preference in hiring, labor-management relations, and appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Id. § 40122(g)(2).
Screener Personnel.... Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the [Administrator] may employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the compensation, terms, and conditions of employment of Federal service for such a number of individuals as the [Administrator] determines to be necessary to carry out the screening functions [required by the Act]. The [Administrator] shall establish levels of compensation and other benefits for individuals so employed.
Id. § 44935 note (internal quotation marks omitted).
to such employees.’ " 147 Cong. Rec. S10,520 (daily ed. Oct. 11, 2001).
On this appeal, we assume the truth of the facts alleged by the plaintiff in his complaint. See Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75, 83 (2d Cir.2008).
In mid-2002, along with more than two million other persons, Conyers applied for various airport security screener positions with the newly created TSA. See Springs v. Stone, 362 F.Supp.2d 686, 690 (E.D.Va.2005) (describing that, " between March and November 2002," the TSA's human resources provider " processed 2,198,505 on-line applications and assessed some 340,000 eligible candidates for screening positions" ). On July 19, 2002, Conyers underwent an employment assessment and was determined to be " ‘ Disqualified/Unqualified’ " for the position of Supervisory Transportation Security Screener at Long Island's MacArthur Airport in Ronkonkoma, New York. Complaint ¶ 20. The letter informing Conyers of this assessment, which is attached as an exhibit to the complaint, states that " the TSA is not able to provide any detailed information regarding your results on the tests or interview. This is a pass/fail assessment system; therefore you will receive no further information by calling the agency, its employees, or its contractors." Id. Ex. 1.

References: v. 
 § 114
 § 44901
 § 44901
 § 40122
 § 44935
 v. 
 v.