Opinion ID: 475502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Civil Service Reform Act Claim

Text: 24 Romain's fourth claim states that [t]he defendant has violated the requirement of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 that an agency reorganization be bona fide. Romain labels as pretextual the agency's statement that the RIF was carried out pursuant to a legitimate reorganization. 25 Once again, Romain failed to name the proper defendant within the thirty-day statutory period. As discussed above, the proper defendant under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(a)(2) is the agency, here the Department of Transportation. 26 The district court noted this jurisdictional defect, but held that even if Romain could amend his complaint, summary judgment would be proper. We agree.
27 Romain strenuously argues that he is entitled to de novo judicial review of his nondiscrimination claim, but he is mistaken. Ordinarily, petitions for judicial review of MSPB action are filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and are reviewed on the administrative record. 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7703(b)(1), 7701(c)(1)-(3). Where a claim of discrimination is coupled with a nondiscrimination claim, however, the entire mixed case is filed in the district court. Id. Sec. 7703(b)(2); 29 U.S.C. Sec. 633a(c); see also Tolliver, 790 F.2d at 1395. On the discrimination claim, the petitioner shall have the right to have the facts subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(c). The nondiscrimination claim in a mixed case is, however, reviewed on the administrative record under Sec. 7703(c)(1)-(3). Hayes v. United States Government Printing Office, 684 F.2d 137, 141 (D.C.Cir.1982) (Hayes may bring his entire mixed case before the district court for review de novo of the discrimination claim, and review on the record of his nondiscrimination claim.); Swann v. Walters, 620 F.Supp. 741, 744 (D.D.C.1984) (same); Thompson v. United States Postal Service, 596 F.Supp. 628, 631 (W.D.Va.1984) (in considering the nondiscrimination portion of a mixed case, court reviewed claim on the administrative record following Sec. 7703(c)(1)-(3)). The district court properly followed this principle in denying de novo review of the nondiscrimination claim.
28 The MSPB concluded that MARAD had a legitimate basis for the RIF. The district court concluded that [n]othing before the Court suggests that the [MSPB's] finding of no violation is erroneous. 29 In arriving at his decision, the MSPB presiding official considered testimony of three people, documents submitted by the parties, and deposition testimony of Shear. However, the administrative record does not appear to have been filed with the district court. From the district court's brief discussion on the merits, it is not clear what materials the district court had before it. 30 From our review of the decision of the MSPB and the few supporting documents provided in Plaintiff's Exhibits, CR 38, we conclude that the district court was correct. The MSPB presiding official stated that he heard testimony and reviewed documents furnishing evidence beyond any contradiction of extensive, recurrent reorganziations in the agency in which hundreds of positions were eliminated. The presiding official concluded: 31 The evidence is compelling that a reorganization within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. 351.203(f) occurred. The evidence clearly established that there was a planned elimination of duties as well as a redistribution of functions in the organization which occurred on a nationwide basis. The evidence also established, as noted, that this current reorganization took place in the context of a series of reorganizations in the recent past and a continuing reduction in agency staffing. 32 We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant on this claim. 33 AFFIRMED.