Court Opinion

ID: 9373470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:16.291051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.098784
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ERIC WILLIAMS,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                   AT-4324-16-0662-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,                          DATE: August 25, 2022
                 Agency.

                   THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

                Eric Williams, North Charleston, South Carolina, pro se.

                Kristin A. Martin, Norfolk, Virginia, for the agency.

                Mary Kate DeMane, Portsmouth, Virginia, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                      REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his request for corrective action under the
     Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
     (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335) (USERRA). For the reasons

     1
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
     but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and ad ministrative judges are not
     required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
     precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                              2

     discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for re view, VACATE the
     initial decision, and REMAND the case to the regional office for further
     adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.
¶2         In July 2016, the appellant filed a USERRA appeal alleging that he is a 30%
     disabled veteran and that the agency discriminated against him on the basis of
     his uniformed military service when it did not select him for the GS-9/11
     Contract Specialist position advertised under vacancy ID 1460254 (job
     announcement number EA51102-12-1460254LZ122318D). 2 Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 1 at 1-5.        The appellant requested a hearing.           Id. at 1.    The
     administrative judge issued an order informing the appellant of his jurisdictional
     burden and proof requirements and directed him to submit evidence and
     argument amounting to a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction.              IAF, Tab 3
     at 2-5, 7. In response, the appellant alleged that the agency took the following
     improper actions, which led to his nonselection, because of his status as a
     veteran: (1) violated the pass over provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 3318(b); (2) failed to
     give appropriate consideration to his disability rating; (3) violated his veterans’
     preference rights under the category rating procedures; (4) inappropriately used
     Expedited Hiring Authority to make its selections for the Contract Specialist
     position; (5) failed to properly rate and rank his application; (6) failed to credit
     him with all valuable experience for the position; (7) failed to properly advertise
     the position; (8) denied him the opportunity to compete for the position; and
     (9) committed other procedural irregularities. IAF, Tabs 6, 8.

     2
       The appellant also has challenged this nonselection in two separate appeals before the
     Board under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. In Williams v.
     Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. AT-3330-16-0663-I-1, Initial Decision
     (Aug. 4, 2016), the administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
     The initial decision became the final decision of the Board when n either party
     petitioned for review. In Williams v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket
     No. DC-3330-16-0292-B-1, on remand the administrative judge denied the appellant’s
     request for corrective action, and the Board denied the appellant’s petition for revi ew of
     the remand initial decision. Williams v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No.
     DC-3330-16-0292-B-1, Final Order (Aug. 25, 2022).
                                                                                           3

¶3        In the initial decision, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal for
     lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellant failed to make more than bare
     allegations that his rights under USERRA were violated and instead merely
     catalogued how he believed his veterans’ preference rights were violated. IAF,
     Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID).
¶4        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, and the
     agency has responded in opposition. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3.
¶5        Two types of cases arise under USERRA:             (1) reemployment cases, in
     which the appellant claims that an agency has not met its obligations under
     38 U.S.C. §§ 4312-4318 following the appellant’s absence from civilian
     employment to perform uniformed service; and (2) “discrimination” cases, in
     which the appellant claims that an agency has taken an action prohibited by
     38 U.S.C. § 4311(a) or (b). Clavin v. U.S. Postal Service, 99 M.S.P.R. 619, ¶ 5
     (2005). The Board has adopted, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
     Circuit has endorsed, a “liberal approach in determining whether jurisdiction
     exists under USERRA.”        Yates v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 145 F.3d
     1480, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Beck v. Department of the Navy, 120 M.S.P.R. 504,
     ¶ 8 (2014). Under this approach, the relative weakness of the specific factual
     allegations initially made by an appellant in his USERRA claim should not serve
     as the basis for dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; rather, if he fails to
     develop those allegations, his USERRA claim should be denied on the merits.
     Beck, 120 M.S.P.R. 504, ¶ 8. Thus, to establish jurisdiction over his USERRA
     claim, the appellant need only allege the following: (1) he served in the military;
     (2) he was denied initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment,
     promotion, or a benefit of employment; and (3) the denial was due to his service
     in the military. Id.
¶6        As noted above, the administrative judge found that the appellant failed to
     establish Board jurisdiction over his USERRA claim. ID at 3. However, in light
     of the liberal pleading standard applied in such cases, we find that the appellant’s
                                                                                       4

     contentions that the agency denied him initial employment on the basis of his
     status as a veteran are sufficient to establish jurisdiction over his USERRA
     appeal. See Beck, 120 M.S.P.R. 504, ¶ 8; Searcy v. Department of Agriculture,
     115 M.S.P.R. 260, ¶ 8 (2010) (finding that, although the appellant’s allegations
     were vague and lacked specificity, he established jurisdiction by alleging that the
     agency was aware of his prior uniformed service and denied him employment
     because of it, and denied him a benefit of employment when it withdrew funds
     from his civil service retirement account).
¶7        An appellant who establishes jurisdiction over a USERRA appeal has an
     unconditional right to a hearing if he requests one. Kirkendall v. Department of
     the Army, 479 F.3d 830, 844-46 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Searcy, 115 M.S.P.R. 260, ¶ 7.
     Because the appellant requested a hearing and made sufficient allegations under
     the liberal pleading standard applied in USERRA cases to establish jurisdiction,
     we remand the appeal for a hearing on his USERRA claim.

                                          ORDER
¶8        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
     for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

     FOR THE BOARD:                           /s/ for
                                              Jennifer Everling
                                              Acting Clerk of the Board
     Washington, D.C.