Opinion ID: 783068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Count 126: Violation of Plaintiff's Procedural RIF Rights

Text: 79 In Count 126, Plaintiff had asserted violations of three RIF rights: (1) veterans' preference in retention of employees; (2) bumping and retreating rights; and (3) reemployment rights.
80 Plaintiff appears to argue that TVA failed to exercise all means to retain Plaintiff in his Safety Specialist, SD-4 position when implementing the RIF. However, it is not disputed that Plaintiff, as a disabled veteran, was placed at the top of the list (i.e., he would be the last in his department to be RIF'd). All of the employees in the Safety Specialist department were RIF'd, and therefore Plaintiff is without a legitimate complaint in this regard. 81
82 Plaintiff also argues that TVA failed to accord him all of his bumping, retreating, and reemployment rights, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 351.701: 83 When a group I or II competitive service employee with a current annual performance rating of record of minimally successful (Level 2) or equivalent, or higher, is released from a competitive level, an agency shall offer assignment, rather than furlough or separate, in accordance with paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section to another competitive position which requires no reduction, or the lease [sic] possible reduction, in representative rate. 84 Id. § 351.701(a). Subsections (b) and (c) detail the requirements for bumping (the right of one employee to displace another employee in a lower subgroup) and retreating (the right to take a position within the same subgroup but held by someone with a lower retention standing). Id. § 351.701(b), (c). Plaintiff argues that TVA only considered him for a SD-3 position, when in fact his bumping privileges entitled him to consideration for SD-2 and SD-1 positions as well. Plaintiff also argues that TVA did not accord him his retreating privileges either. 85 However, as TVA correctly points out, § 351.701 applies only to employees in the competitive service. See 5 C.F.R. § 351.701(a). The next question is whether Plaintiff was employed in the competitive or excepted service. It does not appear that we have squarely decided this issue, 5 but the Federal Circuit has. In Dodd v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 770 F.2d 1038 (Fed.Cir.1985), the court looked at the definition of competitive service, under 5 U.S.C. § 2102, which is all civil service positions in the executive branch, except (A) positions which are specifically excepted from the competitive service by or under statute. 5 U.S.C. § 2102(a)(1)(A). The statute authorizing the TVA indicates that [t]he board shall without regard to the provisions of Civil Service laws applicable to officers and employees of the United States, appoint such managers, assistant managers, officers, employees, attorneys, and agents as are necessary for the transaction of its business. 16 U.S.C. § 831b (emphasis added). This means that TVA is exempted from conditioning its appointments on the passage of a competitive examination. The competitive examination is the touchstone of the competitive service. Dodd, 770 F.2d at 1040. We agree with the Federal Circuit's analysis and hold that TVA employees are not in the competitive service. Consequently, TVA employees are not entitled to the rights contained in 5 U.S.C. § 2102 or 5 C.F.R. § 351.701. Accordingly, Plaintiff was not entitled to these retention preferences, and we affirm the district court's dismissal of Count 126. 86