Opinion ID: 212058
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The position-oriented framework

Text: 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