Opinion ID: 1354514
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conyers's Application for Employment with the TSA and Prior Litigation

Text: On this appeal, we assume the truth of the facts alleged by the plaintiff in his complaint. See Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75, 83 (2d Cir.2008). In mid-2002, along with more than two million other persons, Conyers applied for various airport security screener positions with the newly created TSA. See Springs v. Stone, 362 F.Supp.2d 686, 690 (E.D.Va. 2005) (describing that, between March and November 2002, the TSA's human resources provider processed 2,198,505 on-line applications and assessed some 340,000 eligible candidates for screening positions). On July 19, 2002, Conyers underwent an employment assessment and was determined to be `Disqualified/Unqualified' for the position of Supervisory Transportation Security Screener at Long Island's MacArthur Airport in Ronkonkoma, New York. Complaint ¶ 20. The letter informing Conyers of this assessment, which is attached as an exhibit to the complaint, states that the TSA is not able to provide any detailed information regarding your results on the tests or interview. This is a pass/fail assessment system; therefore you will receive no further information by calling the agency, its employees, or its contractors. Id. Ex. 1. Thereafter, Conyers made numerous attempts to obtain specific information about or an administrative review of his assessment, but was unsuccessful until 2003, when his congressional representative was informed that Conyers did not pass the physical qualifications examination. [6] Id. ¶ 22 & Ex. 2. Conyers further alleges that the TSA determined that his negative assessment rating was applicable for all employment positions for which he had applied. Id. ¶ 23. On October 21, 2002, Conyers filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) challenging the TSA's decision not to select him for the Supervisory Transportation Security Screener position (the MSPB Action). An Administrative Judge dismissed Conyers's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the MSPB denied his petition for review. Conyers first appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed, and he then unsuccessfully sought review by the Supreme Court. See Conyers v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 388 F.3d 1380 (Fed.Cir.2004), cert. denied 543 U.S. 1171, 125 S.Ct. 1360, 161 L.Ed.2d 150, reh'g denied 544 U.S. 969, 125 S.Ct. 1730, 161 L.Ed.2d 618 (2005). The Federal Circuit held that Section 111(d) of the ATSA renders inapplicable general federal statutes that otherwise would apply to the process of selecting TSA screeners, including the provisions of Title 5 of the United States Code that would permit an appeal to the MSPB in Conyers's case. Id. at 1382 (construing 49 U.S.C. § 44935 note).