Court Opinion

ID: 9839209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 15:00:59.313215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:38.950217
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1278    Document: 32    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        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
            ______________________

                        2023-1278
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-4324-22-0332-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: 23-1278     Document: 32     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 Uniformed Services Employment and
 Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). For the fol-
 lowing reasons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Ms. Trimble is an honorably discharged veteran who
 served on active duty in the United States Army from Au-
 gust 1996 to June 2000. Appx. 11. 1 In January of 2022,
 Ms. Trimble applied for the position of Executive Assistant
 in the Region 6 team of the Federal Emergency Manage-
 ment Agency (FEMA) in Denton, Texas. Id. Ms. Trimble
 was initially selected as one of the best qualified candidates
 and was invited to interview for the position, along with
 five other candidates. Id. Those interviews were con-
 ducted by a three-person panel including the FEMA Region
 6 Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, who chaired the
 panel, and two other Region 6 officials. Id. Based on its
 interviews, the panel scored and recommended candidates
 for hiring to the Region 6 Regional Administrator, who
 acted as the selecting official. Id. at 11–12.
     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 her non-selec-
 tion violated USERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., which pro-
 hibits, inter alia, discrimination in hiring decisions based
 on an applicant’s prior military service. See 38 U.S.C.
 § 4311(a). The Board denied Ms. Trimble’s request for cor-
 rective action under USERRA. See Trimble v. Dep’t of
 Homeland Sec., No. DA-4324-22-0332-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 7,

     1   Citations to “Appx.” refer to the appendix attached
 to the Respondent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 23-1278     Document: 32    Page: 3    Filed: 09/12/2023

 TRIMBLE v. DHS                                            3

 2022) (reproduced at Appx. 10–17). In particular, the
 Board found Ms. Trimble failed to demonstrate by a pre-
 ponderance of the evidence that her status as a veteran was
 a substantial or motivating factor for her non-selection,
 Appx. 13–17, a required element of a USERRA claim. Ms.
 Trimble timely appealed to this Court. 2 We have jurisdic-
 tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(b)(1)(A).
                        DISCUSSION
      We must uphold the Board’s decision unless it is “(1)
 arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
 not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without proce-
 dures required by law, rule, or regulation having been fol-
 lowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5
 U.S.C. § 7703(c). To prove a USERRA violation, the claim-
 ant “bears the initial burden of showing by a preponder-
 ance of the evidence that his military service was a
 substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employ-
 ment action.” Erickson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 571 F.3d 1364,
 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Whether a veteran’s military service
 was a substantial or motivating factor in her non-selection
 is a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. See
 Sheehan v. Dep’t of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1013–14 (Fed. Cir.
 2001). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as
 a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

    2     This is not the first appeal in which Ms. Trimble
 has alleged a USERRA violation because of her non-selec-
 tion for the position of Executive Assistant within a gov-
 ernment agency. In Trimble v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No.
 2023-1307, 2023 WL 4287197 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2023)
 (non-precedential), which involved substantially similar al-
 legations, we upheld the Board’s finding that Ms. Trimble
 failed to prove her non-selection for an Executive Assistant
 position within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
 was the result of military service-based discrimination.
Case: 23-1278    Document: 32     Page: 4    Filed: 09/12/2023

 4                                            TRIMBLE v. DHS

 conclusion.” McLaughlin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 353 F.3d
 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Matsuhita Elec. Indus.
 Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
      Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
 Ms. Trimble failed to carry her initial burden to show her
 military service was a substantial or motivating factor in
 her non-selection. The Board reviewed the testimony of
 Ms. Trimble and each of the interviewing officials and
 found no evidence of any animus toward Ms. Trimble be-
 cause of her status as a veteran. Appx. 14–16. Ms. Trimble
 acknowledged below that the interview panel made no de-
 rogatory comments regarding her military service and that
 the interview chair—himself a veteran 3—described FEMA
 as having an inclusive, veteran-friendly culture. Id. at 14.
 The Board also credited testimony of all three interviewers
 that they held favorable views of veterans in the workplace
 and that the interview process was identical for each of the
 six candidates. Id. Each interviewer also testified that the
 candidate selected for the Executive Assistant position per-
 formed better than Ms. Trimble in the interview, providing
 detailed answers tied to specific prior experience, whereas
 Ms. Trimble’s answers were generally vague and abstract.
 Id. at 14–15. The Board found this testimony credibly
 demonstrated that Ms. Trimble was not recommended to
 the selecting official because of her weaker performance in
 the interview, not because of her military service. Id. Fi-
 nally, the Board credited the selecting official’s testimony
 that he selected the alternative candidate, rather than Ms.
 Trimble, without performing additional interviews because
 he trusted the panel’s (non-discriminatory) recommenda-
 tion. Id. at 15.

     3  The interview chair’s status as a veteran is “[a]lso
 relevant to showing a lack of discrimination” against Ms.
 Trimble because of her military service. Trimble, 2023 WL
 4287197, at *2.
Case: 23-1278     Document: 32      Page: 5    Filed: 09/12/2023

 TRIMBLE v. DHS                                               5

      In the face of this evidence, Ms. Trimble principally re-
 lies on the fact that she was not selected for the position,
 while a non-veteran was, to establish discriminatory in-
 tent. See Appellant’s Informal Op. Br. at 2 (“[The selecting
 official] denied initial employment to me, and this fact
 clearly proves his willingness to disobey veterans’ prefer-
 ence laws before appointing a non-veteran . . . .”); Appx. 14
 (noting Ms. Trimble’s argument to the Board that FEMA’s
 “refusal to consider [her] non-selection . . . is indicative of
 animus”). But Ms. Trimble’s non-selection alone is insuffi-
 cient to carry her burden to show a USERRA violation.
 Sheehan, 240 F.3d at 1015 (“[C]laimants must show evi-
 dence of discrimination other than the fact of non-selection
 and membership in the protected class.”). To carry her bur-
 den, Ms. Trimble was required to put forward evidence
 showing her non-selection was motivated by service-based
 discrimination. The Board’s finding that Ms. Trimble did
 not succeed in that task is supported by substantial evi-
 dence.
     Ms. Trimble’s allegation that the selecting official vio-
 lated USERRA by allegedly ignoring veterans’ preference
 laws, including by conducting and crediting candidate in-
 terviews, is also misplaced. See Appellant’s Informal Op.
 Br. at 2; Appellant’s Informal Reply Br. at 2. While
 USERRA prohibits discrimination against veterans on the
 basis of their military service, it does not encompass claims
 based on the improper denial of the veterans’ preference
 except insofar as the denial is evidence of discriminatory
 intent. 4 See Jones v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 834

     4   Claims regarding the improper denial of the veter-
 ans’ preference are properly raised under the Veterans Em-
 ployment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). Ms. Trimble
 has brought a separate action raising VEOA claims based
 on her non-selection by FEMA, which is the subject of a
 separate case. Trimble v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs.,
Case: 23-1278    Document: 32       Page: 6   Filed: 09/12/2023

 6                                             TRIMBLE v. DHS

 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Ms. Trimble does not ex-
 plain how the alleged failure to apply the veterans’ prefer-
 ence demonstrates discriminatory intent, beyond resulting
 in her non-selection, which is insufficient by itself to sup-
 port a USERRA claim. Further, it is undisputed the Exec-
 utive Assistant position was announced through FEMA’s
 merit promotion process, see Appx. 11, in which a veteran
 “is not entitled to veterans’ preference,” Joseph v. F.T.C.,
 505 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
 FEMA’s alleged failure to apply the veterans’ preference in
 circumstances where it is inapplicable does not support an
 inference of bias.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Ms. Trimble’s other arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given, we
 hold substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
 Ms. Trimble failed to prove discriminatory intent was a
 substantial or motivating factor in her non-selection and
 therefore affirm the Board’s denial of corrective action un-
 der USERRA.
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.

 No. 2023-1279 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2023). We addressed
 substantially similar VEOA claims based on Ms. Trimble’s
 non-selection by the VA in Trimble v. Dep’t of Veterans
 Affs., No. 2023-1306, 2023 WL 4287195 (Fed. Cir. June 30,
 2023) (non-precedential).