Opinion ID: 211418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Same or Similar Positions

Text: 18 Coradeschi argues that the AJ improperly denied him an evidentiary hearing on the issue of MSPB jurisdiction through § 7511 and § 7513. Specifically, he contends that he made a non-frivolous allegation that his position as an INS agent was similar to his position as a FAM under § 7511. 19 To meet the similar positions test, the employee must occupy positions that involve related or comparable work that requires the same or similar skills.  Mathis v. United States Postal Serv., 865 F.2d 232, 234 (Fed.Cir.1988) (emphasis added). In Mathis, we reversed the AJ's finding that a postal employee's positions as a special delivery manager and subsequently as a distribution clerk were not similar positions for purposes of § 7511. Id. at 233. There, we stated that the AJ improperly narrowed the meaning of similar positions by focusing on certain differences in the work the two jobs involved, as specified in the position descriptions. Id. The AJ in Mathis found that the two positions were dissimilar because the `main function' of a special delivery messenger `is to deliver' the mail `after it has been sorted,' and not to `distribute it within the facility [the Post Office],' which is the function of a distribution clerk. Id. We rejected that finding and held that the critical fact is that the petitioner handled the mail and that the skills required to perform mail handling in both positions were closely related. Id. at 235. There was no indication that the employee was unable to perform his new duties or that he was required to undergo extensive retraining. Id. The fact that he did that handling in different physical locations and in different steps of the mail distribution process did not alter the fundamental character of the work he did, which was sufficiently closely related in the two jobs to make those positions `similar.' Id. 20 Accordingly, the MSPB has interpreted such language to mean a position is similar if experience in a position demonstrates the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the work of the other job. Shobe v. U.S. Postal Serv., 5 MSPB 468, 5 M.S.P.R. 466, 471 (1981); accord Mathis, 865 F.2d at 234; Spillers v. U.S. Postal Serv., 65 M.S.P.R. 22, 26 (1994). 21 Furthermore, the TSA's own Human Resources Office defines same or similar positions for its own probationary period. TSA Management Directive No. 1100.31-1 on Trial Periods effective February 4, 2004 (TSA Directive)—a week before Coradeschi was terminated—defines the term same or similar positions to be [p]ositions that would be classified in the same occupational series and requires substantially the same or similar qualifications. TSA Directive § 4(E). 22 Here, Coradeschi maintains that he has sufficiently made a non-frivolous allegation that his work as an INS agent was the same or similar to his work as a FAM. We agree. 23 From the limited evidence presented without even a hearing, it appears that both positions required Coradeschi to apprehend and subdue criminals, carry and be proficient with a firearm, and investigate criminal activity. Moreover, both positions carried an 1801 occupation code, a fact that seems important in both the TSA Bulletin in effect when Coradeschi was hired and the TSA Directive in effect when he was terminated. 4 24 The AJ and the government place too much emphasis on job description dissimilarities, such as the fact that FAMs enforce criminal laws primarily in the confines of planes while INS agents enforce immigration laws primarily within business establishments and the fact that FAMs undergo specialized training for work onboard aircraft. Furthermore, the AJ noted that FAM incumbents must obtain a top secret security clearance. 25 While these differences are real, they fail to overcome Coradeschi's allegations that the skills and fundamental character of both positions were closely related. Both positions required firearm proficiency and the ability to enforce laws and apprehend criminals. Even though Coradeschi was required to undergo specialized FAM training, there is no evidence to suggest the retraining was extensive as Mathis requires. 865 F.2d at 235. In fact, Coradeschi alleges that less than 15 hours of the training was substantively new training. Furthermore, he alleges that much of the training was waived because of his prior experience. 26 Like Mathis, the fact that Coradeschi performed the same skills in two different physical locations, i.e., a plane as opposed to a business, does not make his allegations frivolous. Therefore, Coradeschi has made non-frivolous allegations that he is an employee for purposes of § 7511 and is entitled to appeal his action to the MSPB. An evidentiary hearing is now appropriate to determine by preponderance of the evidence whether his position as an INS agent is the same as or similar to his position as a FAM. If by a preponderance of the evidence they are proven similar, the MSPB has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Coradeschi's appeal.