Court Opinion

ID: 9839208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 15:00:58.73768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:38.952850
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1279    Document: 28    Page: 1   Filed: 09/12/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    AISHA TRIMBLE,
                        Petitioner

                            v.

     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
                  Respondent
            ______________________

                        2023-1279
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-3330-22-0251-I-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: September 12, 2023
                  ______________________

    AISHA TRIMBLE, Dallas, TX, pro se.

     RAFIQUE OMAR ANDERSON, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, FRANKLIN E.
 WHITE, JR.
                  ______________________

  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and TARANTO, Circuit
                         Judges.
Case: 23-1279     Document: 28     Page: 2    Filed: 09/12/2023

 2                                             TRIMBLE v. DHS

 PER CURIAM.
     Aisha Trimble appeals a decision of the Merit Systems
 Protection Board (Board) denying her request for corrective
 action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act
 of 1998 (VEOA). For the following reasons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      Ms. Trimble is an honorably discharged, preference-el-
 igible veteran who served on active duty in the United
 States Army from August 1996 to June 2000. Appx. 16. 1
 In January of 2022, Ms. Trimble applied for the position of
 Executive Assistant in the Region 6 team of the Federal
 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Denton,
 Texas. Id. The Executive Assistant position was an-
 nounced through FEMA’s merit promotion process, id. at
 22, 77–79, which permits the “position [ ] to be filled by an
 employee of the agency or by an applicant from outside the
 agency who has ‘status’ in the competitive service,” Joseph
 v. F.T.C., 505 F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing 5
 C.F.R. § 335.103(b)(1)). By statute, veterans are eligible to
 apply for all positions listed through the merit promotion
 process. Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)). Ms. Trimble was
 initially selected as one of the best qualified candidates and
 was invited, along with other candidates, to interview for
 the position. Appx. 16.
     Ms. Trimble was ultimately not selected for the Execu-
 tive Assistant position, which was instead offered to an-
 other, non-veteran interviewee. Id. at 12. Ms. Trimble
 appealed that decision to the Board, arguing the selection
 process violated the VEOA’s provisions requiring veterans
 be given “the opportunity to compete” for merit promotion
 positions, see 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1), and veterans’ prefer-
 ences in hiring decisions, see 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(A)

     1   Citations to “Appx.” refer to the appendix attached
 to the Respondent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 23-1279      Document: 28      Page: 3     Filed: 09/12/2023

 TRIMBLE v. DHS                                                 3

 (providing a cause of action to “a preference eligible who
 alleges that an agency has violated such individual rights
 . . . relating to veterans’ preference”). The Board denied
 Ms. Trimble’s request for corrective action under the
 VEOA. See Trimble v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. DA-
 3330-22-0251-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 7, 2022) (reproduced at
 Appx. 15–23). Amongst other things, 2 the Board deter-
 mined Ms. Trimble failed to show she was not accorded a
 fair opportunity to compete, Appx. 18–20, and that, be-
 cause the Executive Assistant position was undisputedly
 listed through the merit promotion process, Ms. Trimble
 was “not entitled to veterans’ preference,” Appx. 22 (quot-
 ing Joseph, 505 F.3d at 1383). Ms. Trimble timely ap-
 pealed to this Court. 3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).
                          DISCUSSION
      On appeal, Ms. Trimble disputes the Board’s determi-
 nations that she failed to establish she was deprived of a
 fair opportunity to compete and application of veterans’
 preferences. We must uphold the Board’s decision unless
 it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or oth-
 erwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without
 procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been

     2   The Board also rejected Ms. Trimble’s claims that
 FEMA violated 38 U.S.C. § 4214 and 5 C.F.R. § 315.611.
 Appx. 22. Ms. Trimble does not appeal those rulings.
     3   This is not the first case in which Ms. Trimble has
 brought VEOA claims based on her non-selection for an Ex-
 ecutive Assistant position within a government agency. In
 Trimble v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 2023-1306, 2023 WL
 4287195 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2023) (non-precedential), we
 upheld the Board’s decision regarding substantially simi-
 lar VEOA claims arising from Ms. Trimble’s non-selection
 for an Executive Assistant position within the Department
 of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Case: 23-1279    Document: 28      Page: 4    Filed: 09/12/2023

 4                                             TRIMBLE v. DHS

 followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5
 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We review the Board’s finding that Ms.
 Trimble was given a fair opportunity to compete for sub-
 stantial evidence. See Asatov v. Dep’t of Lab., 542 F. App’x
 930, 932 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential) (affirming on
 substantial evidence “the Board’s factual conclusion that
 [the veteran] was afforded an opportunity to compete”).
 Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a rea-
 sonable mind might accept as adequate to support a con-
 clusion.” McLaughlin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 353 F.3d 1363,
 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We review the Board’s legal conclu-
 sions, including the interpretation of statutes and prece-
 dent, de novo. See Abell v. Dep’t of Navy, 343 F.3d 1378,
 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
     With respect to Ms. Trimble’s claim that she was de-
 prived of a fair opportunity to compete in violation of
 § 3304(f)(1), we hold substantial evidence supports the
 Board’s finding to the contrary. Ms. Trimble alleges she
 was deprived of that opportunity because another candi-
 date was “preselected” for the position despite being ineli-
 gible and the conducted interviews were “fake” and only
 intended to provide the illusion of fair competition. See Ap-
 pellant’s Informal Op. Br. at 2–10. The Board considered
 these allegations but found them speculative, wholly un-
 supported by evidence, and contrary to the evidence of rec-
 ord. Appx. 19–20. In particular, the Board credited
 testimony that, contrary to Ms. Trimble’s allegations, the
 candidate ultimately selected was eligible for promotion
 and was not informed of her tentative selection until well
 after interviews with each candidate were completed, bely-
 ing claims of preselection. Id. The Board likewise rejected
 Ms. Trimble’s allegations that the interviews were pre-
 textual and that a letter from the interview panel to the
 selecting official recommending the selectee was a “decep-
 tive, forged document,” crediting those officials’ sworn tes-
 timony that the interview process was identical for each
 candidate and that the letter was genuine. Id.; see also
Case: 23-1279     Document: 28     Page: 5   Filed: 09/12/2023

 TRIMBLE v. DHS                                            5

 Appx. 64 (recommendation letter). This is substantial evi-
 dence supporting the Board’s finding that Ms. Trimble did
 not establish she was denied a fair opportunity to compete
 for the Executive Assistant position.
     With respect to Ms. Trimble’s claim that she was im-
 properly deprived of veterans’ preferences in violation of
 § 3330a(a)(1)(A), we hold the Board correctly concluded the
 veterans’ preference was inapplicable to the merits promo-
 tion position for which Ms. Trimble applied. While the
 VEOA ensures veterans have the opportunity to compete
 for positions announced through the merit promotion pro-
 cess, it does not provide for application of the veterans’
 preference in that context. Indeed, § 3304(f)(3) of the
 VEOA expressly states the “opportunity to compete” provi-
 sion of § 3304(f) “shall not be construed to confer an enti-
 tlement to veterans’ preference that is not otherwise
 required by law.” In short, “an employee is not entitled to
 veterans’ preference in the merit promotion process.” Jo-
 seph, 505 F.3d at 1383 (quotation omitted). It is undis-
 puted the Executive Assistant position for which Ms.
 Trimble applied was announced through the merit promo-
 tion process. Appx. 22; Appx. 77–79 (vacancy announce-
 ment). FEMA’s alleged failure to apply the veterans’
 preference to Ms. Trimble’s application for a merit promo-
 tion position therefore does not establish a VEOA violation
 as a matter of law.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Ms. Trimble’s other arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given, we af-
 firm the Board’s denial of corrective action under the
 VEOA.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.