Opinion ID: 212058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Appellee's LEO Status

Text: 22 Our analysis of the appellee's request for LEO status is governed by our relevant precedent. That precedent is binding on this court as it is binding on the Court of Federal Claims. In its opinion, the Court of Federal Claims chose to begin by undertaking the interpretation of 5 U.S.C. § 8331(20) de novo and, in the alternative, analyzing this case under our precedent. We reject the court's initial de novo interpretation of § 8331(20) because the Court of Federal Claims may not deviate from the precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit any more than the Federal Circuit can deviate from the precedent of the United States Supreme Court. Trial courts are not free to make the law anew simply because they disagree with the precedential and authoritative analysis of a reviewing appellate court. 23 A LEO, under the statutory definition, is one who primarily investigat[es], apprehen[ds] or det[ains] those suspected of federal crimes. 5 U.S.C. § 8331(20). His or her primary duties are those that: 24 i Are paramount in influence or weight; that is, constitute the basic reasons for the existence of the position; 25 ii Occupy a substantial portion of the individual's working time over a typical work cycle; and 26 iii Are assigned on a regular and recurring basis. 27 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.902, 842.802 (2004). Generally, an employee who spends at least half of his or her working time on the investigation, apprehension or detention of criminal suspects is considered to be one whose duties are primarily law enforcement. Id. 28 Our current precedent regarding the LEO status of federal employees has evolved from a case-by-case factor specific framework to a position-oriented framework supplemented by the individual facts presented by each case.
29 The case-by-case framework was first articulated by the Board in Hobbs v. Office of Personnel Management, 58 M.S.P.R. 628 (1993), and later adopted by this court in Bingaman. Bingaman, 127 F.3d at 1436. This framework relied on articulated factors and an individual employee's actual work experience to determine whether or not a federal employee was a LEO. These factors were to be considered as a whole and weighed by the Board on a case-by-case basis. 30 In Hobbs, the Board relied on the legislative history behind 5 U.S.C. § 8331(20) to establish a series of factors that would help in determining an employee's LEO status. Accordingly, the Board construed the term investigation in § 8331(20) to mean criminal investigation or, specifically, the investigation of suspected or known criminals for the immediate purpose of criminally prosecuting them if warranted. Hobbs, 58 M.S.P.R. at 633. The Board went on to identify hazard and physical stamina requirements as integral to a LEO determination. In deciding the case, the Board relied on six factors to determine that Hobbs's position as a special inspector for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was not a law enforcement position for the purposes of § 8331(20). Those factors were: 1) contact with suspected or known criminals; 2) authorization to carry a weapon and requirement to maintain proficiency in using a weapon; 3) giving Miranda warnings to witnesses interviewed in the course of investigation; 4) requirement to be on call twenty four hours a day; 5) working overtime frequently; and 6) requirement to maintain a level of physical fitness. See Hobbs, 58 M.S.P.R. at 633 n. 5. 31 Four years after Hobbs, we adopted the Hobbs factors for ourselves in Bingaman. Bingaman, 127 F.3d at 1436. There, we affirmed the Board's denial of LEO status based on an analysis of the facts performed under the rubric of Hobbs. In Bingaman, we specifically adopted the six Hobbs factors and explained, while the scope of the statutory category of `law enforcement officer' cannot be crisply defined with a single phrase, the set of factors the Board has developed [in Hobbs and afterward] captures the essence of what Congress intended. Id. 32 In December of 2000, we applied the Hobbs-Bingaman factors to a case involving a DI's request for LEO retirement credit. See generally Hannon II, 234 F.3d at 674. In that case, which was similar to this one on the facts and which will be discussed more thoroughly below, we affirmed the Board's determination that a DI who failed to meet four of the six Hobbs-Bingaman factors was not a LEO under § 8331(20). Id. at 677-82. 33 Finally, in Hall, we affirmed the Board's denial of LEO retirement credit to a Canine Enforcement Officer of the Customs Service. Hall described the Hobbs-Bingaman factors as being a set of tools to assist the Board in gauging whether an employee's assigned activities properly fall within the scope of the law enforcement duties recognized by and contained within the statutory ambit of the retirement statutes dealing with LEOs. Hall, 264 F.3d at 1056. Thus, in our view, the factors were not set forth as a substitute for the statute, but rather as a framework for the factual inquiry needed to ascertain coverage under the statutory scheme. Id.
34 Watson marked a further step in the evolution of the case-by-case framework first adopted in Bingaman. 6 There, we adopted the Board's new position-oriented approach, which more affirmatively considered the reasons for the creation and existence of positions than ... the officers' actual, even if incidental or occasional, duties. Watson, 262 F.3d at 1295. The actual duties carried out by federal employees would be relevant only if they run counter to the reasons for the existence of their positions. Id. at 1300-01. 35 In addition to adopting the position-oriented approach, the court identified the five most probative factors in determining a federal officer's entitlement to LEO status. Those five factors are: 36 1) whether the officers are merely guarding life and property or whether the officers are instead more frequently pursuing or detaining criminals; 2) whether there is an early mandatory retirement age; 3) whether there is a youthful maximum entry age; 4) whether the job is physically demanding so as to require a youthful workforce; and 5) whether the officer is exposed to hazard or danger. 37 Id. at 1303. In addition, the Hobbs-Bingaman factors may be considered as necessary and appropriate. Id. The court explained this shift as being necessary to better capture whether or not the hazard associated with a position's duties and the physically demanding nature of the work were associated with law enforcement duties. Id. at 1302. Two years after Watson, we followed the position-oriented approach established in Watson in Koenig v. Department of the Navy, 315 F.3d 1378 (Fed.Cir.2003). Indeed, Koenig used Watson 's position-oriented analysis to deny LEO status to the police officer appellant in that case. 38 It is clear from Koenig that the Watson position-oriented approach is the operative test for this court's review of a federal employee's LEO status. 7 As the Board noted, such an approach is more in keeping with the original language of the relevant statutes than an analysis of an employee's actual duties. See Watson v. Dep't of the Navy, 86 M.S.P.R. 318, 320-21 (2000) (construing 5 U.S.C. § 8331(20) (`[L]aw enforcement officer' means an employee, the duties of whose position are primarily the investigation, apprehension or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of [criminal] offenses.) (emphasis added)). 39
40 In applying the position-oriented approach, we consider the relevant factors established by Bingaman and Watson in determining whether or not a position, not an employee, is entitled to LEO status. And, as in Watson, evidence of an individual employee's activities will be considered insofar as it substantially conflicts with our position determination. 41 As previously noted, our cases offer an array of factors to be considered in applying the position-oriented approach to our review of LEO determinations. Both Watson and Hall used different factor-based tests to aid their review of LEO determinations. Prior to Watson, the Hobbs-Bingaman factors were predominant in this court's review of LEO determinations. While Watson identified five factors that it held to be of primary importance, it did not do away with the Hobbs-Bingaman factors. It instead allowed those factors to be considered as necessary and appropriate in addition to its five enumerated factors. Watson, 262 F.3d at 1303. 42 In reviewing the rationale behind the Watson factors, the Hobbs-Bingaman factors and this court's opinions in Bingaman, Hannon II, Hall, Watson and Koenig, two factors predominate over all others. Indeed, it could be said that certain identified factors are really proxies for the two main considerations behind our LEO cases. 43 The most important consideration in our position-oriented approach of LEO determinations is the physical vigorousness required by the position in question. As we noted in Bingaman, the legislative history behind § 8331(20) emphasized that LEO positions should be composed, insofar as possible, of young men and women physically capable of meeting the vigorous demands of occupations which are far more taxing physically than most in the federal service. Bingaman, 127 F.3d at 1435 (quoting S.Rep. No. 93-948, at 2 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3698, 3699). In Hannon II, Watson , and Hall, we likewise pointed out that physical vigorousness was a factor of utmost importance in determining LEO status. Hannon II, 234 F.3d at 677-78; Watson, 262 F.3d at 1302; Hall, 264 F.3d at 1058 (We agree with the Board's analysis in Hobbs that the relevance of hazard to a LEO analysis is that physical stamina and vigor are necessary to overcome such hazards.). 44 The preeminence of a position's physical vigorousness in determining whether or not a federal position qualifies for LEO status is further supported by the legislative history behind § 8331(20). See S.Rep. No. 93-948, at 2 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3698, 3699; see also 5 U.S.C. § 8401(17)(A)(ii) (2000) (referring to the definition of law enforcement officer in the Federal Employees Retirement System as being an employee whose duties are sufficiently rigorous that employment opportunities should be limited to young and physically vigorous individuals); S.Rep. No. 99-166, at 41 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1405, 1446 (asserting that, for the purposes of the Federal Employees Retirement System, a law enforcement officer was intended to be an employee with rigorous law enforcement duties that require young and vigorous individuals). Thus, as evidenced by the relevant legislative history and our precedents, physical vigorousness is the sine qua non of LEO status determinations. Absent a showing of a position's requirement of physical vigorousness, an employee cannot successfully show LEO status. 45 All of the factor-based tests have attempted to devise factors that could help in determining the physical vigorousness required by a position. For example, in the Hobbs-Bingaman framework, we considered whether or not an employee worked for long periods without a break, was on call twenty four hours a day and/or was required to maintain a level of physical fitness. Bingaman, 127 F.3d at 1436. Similarly, in Watson, we inquired as to whether a position had an early mandatory retirement age, a youthful maximum entry age, and physical demands so great as to require a youthful workforce. Watson, 262 F.3d at 1303. These factors, pulled from our precedents, are the exclusive factors that a court should consider in determining whether a position is sufficiently vigorous to qualify for LEO status. 46 But physical vigorousness is only the first of two inquiries. As a secondary consideration, this court has also examined the hazardousness of a position in LEO determinations. Hazard, while important, is secondary to physical vigorousness because the legislative history emphasizes physical vigor to a greater extent and also because Hall instructs us to use hazard as a secondary indication of physical vigorousness. See Hall, 264 F.3d at 1058. Language in Bingaman, Hannon II and Watson stresses hazardousness as a major factor independent of vigorousness. Given our precedent, it is clear to us that physical vigorousness and hazardousness are the major factors to be considered in determining a federal employee's LEO status. 47 In Bingaman, we inquired as to whether an employee was authorized to carry a firearm, had frequent contact with criminal suspects and/or interrogated witnesses and suspects (giving Miranda warnings where appropriate). Bingaman, 127 F.3d at 1436. In Watson, we asked whether a position exposed an employee to hazard or danger and whether a position required employees to guard life or property instead of more frequently pursuing or detaining criminals (with guarding life or property as not being LEO activity). Watson, 262 F.3d at 1303. These factors attempted to get to the essence of whether or not a position was hazardous enough to be considered a LEO position. (Indeed, the fifth Watson factor was explicit in identifying hazardousness as an important factor.) These factors, previously enumerated by this court, are the exclusive factors to be considered in determining a position's hazardousness. 48 Thus, we hold that there are two major factors that should be considered in determining whether a position should be conferred LEO status. First, and predominant, is the physical vigorousness required by the position. The relevant considerations in any vigorousness determination are whether or not the position brings with it (in order of importance): 1) strenuous physical fitness requirements; 2) age requirements (such as a mandatory retirement age or a maximum entry age); or 3) a requirement that an employee be on call twenty four hours a day. 8 These sub-factors should be evaluated by the Board or the Court of Federal Claims, who must apply the facts to the law to determine which sub-factors, if any, have been satisfied. 9 Once that is complete, the court will have the discretion to weigh the sub-factors in making a vigorousness determination. 10 If the court finds that the position in question did not require vigorousness as herein defined, the LEO inquiry is at its end and the position in question must be deemed to be outside of the scope of 5 U.S.C. § 8331(20). 11 If the position is found to be vigorous, then the second major factor necessary to establish LEO status — hazardousness — must be considered. 49 To determine hazardousness, a court should consider whether the position (in order of importance): requires frequent and consistent contact with criminal suspects on the part of the employee (including interrogation of suspects and pursuit or detention of criminals); or authorizes the employee to carry a firearm. 12 As in Watson, the hazardousness sub-factors are to be considered under the position-oriented approach. Again, this determination of hazardousness will be at the discretion of the court. 13 50 When a court determines that a position fails to qualify for LEO status, the court must afford the employee the opportunity to show that, notwithstanding the absence of a described LEO position, the employee in fact does qualify for LEO credit. This opportunity is necessary since it is possible that agencies will not always keep job descriptions current to match the actual activities of the individuals who occupy described positions. For example, an employee occupying a position that fails to satisfy the test for vigorousness or hazard may nonetheless by actual duties be required to satisfy both those tests. The possible conflict between a position based decision and a decision driven by the activities of a particular individual was foreseen by the Board in Watson: evidence of actual duties performed ... [must show] that — contrary to the official documentation of the position — `the basic reason for the existence of the position' was actually investigation, apprehension, or detention. Watson, 86 M.S.P.R. at 328. Therefore, the employee has the opportunity to disprove the conflict between the description of the position and the real-life facts of occupying the position. To establish LEO status in this fashion, the employee must, consistent with the regulation, show that fifty percent or more of his or her actual duties were LEO duties (i.e. duties that satisfy the vigorousness and hazardousness requirements for LEO status). A preponderance of the evidence must support the employee's claim.
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.