Court Opinion

ID: 9393806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 15:01:00.385049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.557162
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-2280    Document: 44     Page: 1   Filed: 05/11/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   EVAN H. NORDBY,
                       Petitioner

                             v.

       SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                        2021-2280
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DE-4324-19-0012-I-1.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: May 11, 2023
                  ______________________

    TOBY J. MARSHALL, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
 Seattle, WA, argued for petitioner. Also represented by
 ADRIENNE D. MCENTEE.

     MARGARET JANTZEN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

    Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-2280    Document: 44     Page: 2    Filed: 05/11/2023

 2                                             NORDBY   v. SSA

 HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
      Evan Nordby appeals the final decision of the Merit
 Systems Protection Board denying his request for differen-
 tial pay for his military service in the Judge Advocate Gen-
 eral’s Corps of the Army Reserve. Because Judge Nordby’s
 service does not meet the statutory requirements for differ-
 ential pay, we affirm.
                              I
     Judge Nordby served as an administrative law judge
 with the Social Security Administration’s Office of Hear-
 ings Operation (agency). During the relevant period and
 while employed at the agency, he was also a First Lieuten-
 ant in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the Army Re-
 serve. From January to May 2017, Judge Nordby was
 activated under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) to perform military
 service in the Army Reserve. During that period, he con-
 ducted basic training for new Judge Advocates at Fort Ben-
 ning, Georgia and at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal
 Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia.
      Federal employees who are absent from civilian posi-
 tions due to military responsibilities and who meet the re-
 quirements listed in 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a) are entitled to
 differential pay to account for the difference between their
 military and civilian compensation. Here, Judge Nordby
 requested differential pay from the agency to make up the
 difference between his military pay and what he would
 have been paid as an employee of the agency during his
 service. The agency denied his request because it deter-
 mined that those called to voluntary active duty pursuant
 to 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) are not entitled to differential pay
 under 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a).
     Judge Nordby appealed the agency’s denial to the
 Merit Systems Protection Board, arguing that the plain
 language of the statute entitles him to differential pay. He
 contended that he satisfies the statutory requirement
Case: 21-2280      Document: 44      Page: 3    Filed: 05/11/2023

 NORDBY   v. SSA                                               3

 listed in 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a), because he was called to duty
 under a provision referred to in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13)(B)—
 “any [] provision of law during a war or during a national
 emergency declared by the President or Congress.” He ar-
 gued that 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) qualifies as “any provision
 of law” and his activation was “during a national emer-
 gency” because the United States has been in a continuous
 state of national emergency since September 11, 2001. The
 administrative judge issued an initial decision denying his
 request for differential pay for failing to state a legally cog-
 nizable claim. Because he did not file a petition for review
 with the Board, that initial decision became final without
 further review.
     Judge Nordby now appeals.
                                II
     We set aside the Board’s decision only if it is “(1) arbi-
 trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
 in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
 quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
 (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(c). Legal conclusions by the Board are reviewed de
 novo. Wrocklage v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 769 F.3d 1363,
 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
                               III
     When called to active duty, federal employees are enti-
 tled to differential pay between their military and civilian
 compensation, if they meet the statutory requirements un-
 der § 5538(a). Section 5538(a) reads,
        An employee who is absent from a position of
        employment with the Federal Government in
        order to perform active duty in the uniformed
        services pursuant to a call or order to ac-
        tive duty under . . . a provision of law re-
        ferred to in section 101(a)(13)(B) of title
        10 shall be entitled [to differential pay].
Case: 21-2280    Document: 44       Page: 4     Filed: 05/11/2023

 4                                                NORDBY     v. SSA

 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a) (emphasis added).
     The provisions of law listed in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13)
 define what qualifies as “contingency operation[s].” Section
 101(a)(13)(B) states:
       (13) The term “contingency operation” means
       a military operation that—
       ...
       (B) results in the call or order to, or retention
       on, active duty of members of the uniformed
       services under section 688, 12301(a), 12302,
       12304, 12304a, 12305, or 12406 of this title,
       chapter 13 of this title, section 3713 of title 14,
       or any other provision of law during a
       war or during a national emergency de-
       clared by the President or Congress.
 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13)(B) (emphasis added). Thus, to re-
 ceive differential pay, an employee must have been called
 to active duty that meets the statutory definition of a “con-
 tingency operation.” Contingency operation means activa-
 tion under the enumerated provisions listed in 10 U.S.C.
 § 101(a)(13)(B) or activation by “any other provision of law
 during a war or during a national emergency declared by
 the President or Congress.”
       Judge Nordby was called to duty under 10 U.S.C.
 § 12301(d), which provides for the voluntary activation of a
 reservist to active duty. 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) (giving au-
 thority to “order a member of a reserve component under
 [the jurisdiction of competent authority] to active duty
 . . . with the consent of that member”). Because § 12301(d)
 is not one of the enumerated sections in § 101(a)(13)(B), the
 only way Judge Nordby could qualify for differential pay is
 if § 12301(d) is a “provision of law during a war or during a
 national emergency declared by the President or Con-
 gress.” Judge Nordby argues that his military service sat-
 isfies that statutory requirement because he was called to
Case: 21-2280      Document: 44    Page: 5    Filed: 05/11/2023

 NORDBY   v. SSA                                            5

 duty under a provision of law, § 12301(d), and the United
 States has been in a continuous state of national emer-
 gency since September 11, 2001. See, e.g., 86 Fed. Reg.
 50,835 (Sept. 10, 2021) (declaration of the President con-
 tinuing the national emergency for one year).
      We considered and rejected the same argument in Ad-
 ams v. Department of Homeland Security, 3 F.4th 1375
 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 1 There, the federal employee was also ac-
 tivated under § 12301(d) and raised the same argument
 now before us: that he was serving in a contingency opera-
 tion because “any other provision of law” encompasses
 § 12301(d) when the timing of activation coincides with a
 national emergency. Id. at 1379. We specifically rejected
 such an expansive reading of § 5538, which would have en-
 titled differential pay to every federal employee ordered to
 duty since September 11, 2001, regardless of the nature of
 their service. Id. Instead, we held that “any other provision
 of law” does not “necessarily include § 12301(d) voluntary
 duty” if that voluntary duty “was unconnected to the emer-
 gency at hand.” Id. at 1380. In other words, to satisfy as
 “any other provision of law” under 10 U.S.C.
 § 101(a)(13)(B) and qualify as a contingency operation,
 there must be a connection between the voluntary military
 service and the declared national emergency.
     Even though Judge Nordby acknowledges that we are
 bound by Adams, he still urges us to overturn Adams be-
 cause the holding in Adams, he argues, conflicts with our
 earlier precedent, O’Farrell v. Department of Defense, 882
 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Appellant’s Br. 22–24 (citing
 cases from our sister circuits holding that the earlier

     1  We note that the administrative judge’s decision
 became final the same day we issued the decision in Ad-
 ams. While the administrative judge could not have relied
 on Adams to decide the case, we are still bound by our prec-
 edent on appeal.
Case: 21-2280     Document: 44     Page: 6    Filed: 05/11/2023

 6                                              NORDBY   v. SSA

 decision controls when there is a split of authority within a
 circuit). He points to the language in O’Farrell where we
 stated that “[10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13)(B)]’s use of the word
 ‘any’ indicates that this list of statutory provisions is non-
 exhaustive and that ‘other provision[s] of law’ should be in-
 terpreted broadly.” O’Farrell, 882 F.3d at 1084 (second al-
 teration in original). He alleges that Adams created an
 intra-circuit split by narrowing the scope of “any other pro-
 vision of law” and requiring a connection between the mil-
 itary service under § 12301(d) and the declared national
 emergency. Appellant’s Br. 23.
     As we previously explained in Adams, we find no incon-
 sistency between O’Farrell and Adams. Adams, 3 F.4th at
 1379. In O’Farrell, the petitioner indirectly supported a
 contingency operation by replacing a member of the Navy
 who had been deployed to Afghanistan to support the de-
 clared national emergency. O’Farrell, 882 F.3d at 1087–88.
 There was no dispute that his activation was connected to
 the declared national emergency, albeit indirectly. The is-
 sue in O’Farrell was not whether there was a connection,
 but the degree of connection required to meet statutory re-
 quirements for differential pay. 2 By contrast, in Adams,

     2   In O’Farrell, the attorney was activated under 5
 U.S.C. § 6323(b), which entitles a military reservist to mil-
 itary leave benefits if called to active duty “in support of a
 contingency operation.” 5 U.S.C. § 6323(b) (emphasis
 added). As we noted in Adams, the requirements under
 § 5538 are stricter than those under § 6323. Adams, 3 F.4th
 at 1379. Judge Nordby notes that unlike § 6323, § 5538
 does not contain the words “contingency operation,” and
 the Adams court erred by assuming a connection between
 § 5538 and a contingency operation. Although the term
 “contingency operation” does not appear on the face of
 § 5538, it is incorporated by its reference to § 101(a)(13),
Case: 21-2280      Document: 44    Page: 7    Filed: 05/11/2023

 NORDBY   v. SSA                                             7

 the only connection the appellant alleged between his ser-
 vice and the national emergency was a temporal overlap;
 in other words, his service was not directly or indirectly re-
 lated to the national emergency. Adams, 3 F.4th at 1379.
 Therefore, Adams is distinguishable from O’Farrell, and
 Adams did not create an intra-circuit split with O’Farrell.
      Judge Nordby also argues that the Adams court and
 the agency erred by giving deference to the policy guidance
 from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The
 OPM guidance instructs that “qualifying active duty does
 not include voluntary active duty under 10 U.S.C.
 § 12301(d).” OPM Policy Guidance Regarding Reservist
 Differential Under 5 U.S.C. § 5538 at 18 (available at
 https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-
 administration/reservist-differential/policyguidance.pdf).
 The agency pointed to the OPM guidance when denying his
 request for differential pay. He notes that the OPM guid-
 ance was not subject to the formal rulemaking process and
 conflicts with his reading of the statute. But neither the
 administrative judge nor the court in Adams deferred to
 the OPM guidance when affirming the agency’s decision to
 deny petitioners differential pay. The administrative judge
 conducted his own statutory analysis including looking at
 the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651.
 J.A. 11–13. Adams did not defer, but merely observed that
 its reading of § 5538 and definition of “contingency opera-
 tion” are consistent with the OPM’s guidance. Adams, 3.
 F.4th at 1380 (“Our reading of § 5538 is consistent with the
 policy guidance from [OPM] on the matter.”). Adams relied
 on its own statutory construction in reaching that conclu-
 sion.

 which defines “contingency operation.” 10 U.S.C.
 § 101(a)(13) (“The term ‘contingency operation’ means a
 military operation that . . . .”).
Case: 21-2280     Document: 44      Page: 8   Filed: 05/11/2023

 8                                              NORDBY   v. SSA

     As Judge Nordby concedes, our holding in Adams con-
 trols the outcome of this case unless we hear the case en
 banc. Appellant’s Br. 31 (requesting the panel to refer the
 case for en banc consideration); Preminger v. Sec’y of Veter-
 ans Affs., 517 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A prior
 precedential decision on a point of law by a panel of this
 court is binding precedent and cannot be overruled or
 avoided unless or until the court sits en banc.”). Here, as in
 Adams, Judge Nordby has not alleged any connection be-
 tween his service and the declared national emergency
 other than a temporal overlap between his activation and
 the declared national emergency. But as demonstrated in
 Adams, a mere temporal overlap with the national emer-
 gency is not enough to satisfy the statutory definition of a
 “contingency operation.” Judge Nordby only alleges that
 Adams erred in its interpretations of 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a); he
 does not purport to show how his activation under 10
 U.S.C. § 12301(d) fits the Adams definition of a contin-
 gency operation and thus warrants a different outcome. Ac-
 cordingly, we are bound by this court’s precedent in Adams.
     Because Judge Nordby failed to allege any connection
 between the training and the ongoing national emergency
 that resulted from the September 11 attack, Judge Nordby
 is not entitled to differential pay.
                              IV
      We have considered Judge Nordby’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. Because Judge
 Nordby’s service does not qualify as an active duty contin-
 gency operation, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a), the
 agency properly denied differential pay. We affirm the de-
 cision of the Board.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.