Opinion ID: 212058
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mr. Crowley's case

Text: 51 Applying our test to the facts of this case, we first determine whether Mr. Crowley served in a primary LEO position when he served as a DI for the DEA. If he did not, then our inquiry is at its end. If he did, then we must consider whether he properly transferred to a secondary LEO position. 52 We begin by using the factors identified above to determine the physical vigorousness required by Mr. Crowley's position as a DI within the DEA. 53 Throughout Mr. Crowley's DI service with the DEA, nothing in his position description or in any of the official documentation regarding his position articulated a physical fitness requirement. Indeed, DEA memoranda from 1988 and 1989 support that assertion. Furthermore, as the court itself noted, no physical fitness standards or requirements were ever adopted for DIs by the DEA. Crowley I, 53 Fed. Cl. at 780. The Court of Federal Claims found that Mr. Crowley's position was physically demanding because Mr. Crowley may have been asked to move heavy objects and inspect rooftops on occasion. Crowley I, 53 Fed. Cl. at 780. The court, however, failed to find that Mr. Crowley's position had any strenuous physical fitness requirement. Moreover, this type of incidental physical labor does not satisfy a physical fitness requirement as interpreted by this court. See Hannon II, 234 F.3d at 677. 54 The Court of Federal Claims also correctly noted that Mr. Crowley's position was not subject to any maximum entry level age requirement or any mandatory retirement age. Id. As a result, Mr. Crowley's position as a DI does not satisfy the age-related factors pertaining to vigorousness. 55 The final factor in our vigorousness analysis is whether or not Mr. Crowley was required to be on call twenty four hours a day. There was no official requirement that he be on call twenty four hours a day. The Court of Federal Claims points to anecdotal evidence where Mr. Crowley was called in to work irregular hours to support its finding that Mr. Crowley was on call twenty four hours a day. Crowley I, 53 Fed. Cl. at 779. It also pointed to testimony regarding the attitude of Mr. Crowley's superiors towards his general availability. Id. (quoting the Special Agent in Charge of the Portland, Maine DEA office as having testified that he considered every DEA employee to be at my beck and call). But anecdotal evidence and testimony regarding general availability is insufficient to show that Mr. Crowley was required by the obligations of his position to be on call twenty four hours a day. Accordingly, under our position-oriented approach, we find that the final vigorousness factor has not been met in this case. 56 Ordinarily, under the position-oriented approach we articulate here, once a negative determination regarding vigorousness is made, a court need not delve into the hazardousness of an employee's position to determine LEO status. Even if we were to examine the hazardousness of Mr. Crowley's position, however, our result would be unchanged. 57 It is undisputed that Mr. Crowley's position did not authorize him to carry a firearm. Furthermore, there is no evidence that his position existed for the purpose of pursuing and detaining criminals. And even though the Court of Federal Claims correctly noted that there is some evidence that Mr. Crowley himself did engage in contact with and interrogation of those suspects, nothing in his position description mentions any requirements for contact with or interrogation of criminal suspects. 14 Indeed, the Miller-Mullen Memoranda specifically led DIs away from activity that would tend to lead to contact with criminals and suspects. In short, there is little in the official duties of a DI that would incline us to find the position to be hazardous in nature. 58 The result of our analysis conforms with our decision in Hannon II. There, we applied the case-by-case framework to determine that a DI did not qualify for LEO status. As in this case, the DI in Hannon II was not authorized to carry a gun, arrest suspects, execute search warrants, control informants or conduct moving surveillance. Hannon II, 234 F.3d at 675. Hannon was also not required to satisfy a physical fitness requirement or be on call twenty four hours a day. Id. at 677. Furthermore, even though there was anecdotal evidence that Hannon was present at the execution of several searches and occasionally interviewed witnesses and criminal suspects over the course of his seven year career as a DI, we held that he nevertheless did not satisfy the Hobbs-Bingaman factors and, thus, failed to qualify for LEO status. Id. at 678. Although we cannot use Hannon II as controlling authority for our conclusion that DIs are not entitled to LEO status because it precedes the position-oriented framework established in Watson, it does confirm our contention that anecdotal evidence of criminal contact cannot in and of itself confer LEO status on a federal employee. And it provides further persuasive support for our conclusion that a DI is not entitled to LEO status under § 8331(20). 59 Accordingly, we find that Mr. Crowley's position does not qualify for LEO status under controlling precedent and statutes. Furthermore, on this record, it has not been established by a preponderance of the evidence that fifty percent or more of Mr. Crowley's actual duties were LEO duties. He therefore cannot show that his actual duties conflict with his job description to the extent required to gain LEO status. We thus reverse the Court of Federal Claims' finding that the appellee, Mr. Crowley, was entitled to LEO status under the FLEPRA.