Court Opinion

ID: 9895500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 16:02:39.649371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:53.935790
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1276     Document: 24    Page: 1    Filed: 11/07/2023

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                    AISHA TRIMBLE,
                        Petitioner

                             v.

                DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
                         Respondent
                   ______________________

                         2023-1276
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-4324-22-0335-I-1.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: November 7, 2023
                  ______________________

    AISHA TRIMBLE, Dallas, TX, pro se.

     KARA WESTERCAMP, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.
                   ______________________

    Before TARANTO, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1276    Document: 24     Page: 2    Filed: 11/07/2023

 2                                            TRIMBLE v. DOJ

     Aisha Trimble applied for a job with the Bureau of Al-
 cohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), a compo-
 nent of the Department of Justice, but was not selected.
 She then sought corrective action from the Merit Systems
 Protection Board, asserting that ATF had violated the Uni-
 formed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
 Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–4333 (USERRA). The
 Board denied her request. See SAppx. (supplemental ap-
 pendix attached to the Respondent’s Informal Brief) 1–10;
 Trimble v. Department of Justice, No. DA-4324-22-0335-I-
 1, 2022 WL 4634812 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 29, 2022). On Ms.
 Trimble’s appeal, we affirm the Board’s decision. 1
                              I
     Ms. Trimble is an honorably discharged veteran who
 served on active duty in the United States Army. She ap-
 plied for an executive assistant position within ATF. She
 was found to be one of the best qualified candidates and
 was offered an interview, which took place in the first few
 days of February 2022 before a panel of three ATF inter-
 viewers, including the selecting official. But ATF offered
 the job to another candidate, who was not a veteran, and

     1   In two previous appeals before this court, Ms.
 Trimble has alleged USERRA violations stemming from
 her non-selection for positions within the federal govern-
 ment. In Trimble v. Department of Homeland Security, No.
 2023-1278, 2023 WL 5921627 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2023)
 (non-precedential), we affirmed the Board’s rejection of her
 USERRA challenge to her non-selection for a position
 within the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In
 Trimble v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 2023-1307,
 2023 WL 4287197 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2023) (non-preceden-
 tial), we affirmed the Board’s rejection of her USERRA
 challenge to her non-selection for a position within the De-
 partment of Veterans Affairs.
Case: 23-1276     Document: 24      Page: 3     Filed: 11/07/2023

 TRIMBLE v. DOJ                                                3

 that candidate accepted the job offer on February 8, 2022.
 SAppx. 2.
      The candidate who had accepted the job offer withdrew
 her acceptance on March 29. On April 18, Ms. Trimble con-
 tacted one of the ATF interviewers to inquire about her ap-
 plication, and on April 19, that interviewer responded to
 Ms. Trimble that “she was ‘very competitive,’ but ‘another
 candidate was offered the position.’” SAppx. 2. (He later
 testified that he was unaware that the initial selectee had
 already withdrawn. SAppx. 9.) Also on April 19, the Board
 found, “[t]he certificates of eligibles expired.” SAppx. 2.
 The selecting official (one of the interviewers) testified be-
 fore the Board that (in the Board’s description) “when he
 learned the selectee had withdrawn her acceptance of the
 position, Human Resources informed him that it was too
 late to move forward with another selection from the cer-
 tificates of eligibles.” SAppx. 9. At the time of the Board
 hearing, the selecting official testified, the position at issue
 as well as others “remain[ed] vacant” because of an Office
 of Personnel Management (OPM) audit. SAppx. 9 n.7.
     Ms. Trimble then appealed her non-selection to the
 Board under USERRA. Ms. Trimble alleged that ATF did
 not want to hire a veteran for the position and that her non-
 selection was due to “‘discriminatory bias against her mili-
 tary service, in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a).’” SAppx. 4.
 She alleged, in particular, that two of her interviewers had
 made statements during her interview reflective of “‘dis-
 dain for military veterans’” and that one of them asked if
 she had served on active duty or as a reservist. SAppx. 4–
 5. Ms. Trimble also asserted that ATF’s failure to offer her
 the job after the initial selectee withdrew was further evi-
 dence of its discrimination against veterans. SAppx. 9.
     After holding a hearing at which all three interviewers
 testified, the Board administrative judge assigned to the
 matter denied Ms. Trimble’s request for corrective action.
 SAppx. 1–2.      The administrative judge credited the
Case: 23-1276    Document: 24      Page: 4    Filed: 11/07/2023

 4                                             TRIMBLE v. DOJ

 testimony of the interviewers (including the selecting offi-
 cial), considered the fact that a non-veteran was initially
 selected, and found that Ms. Trimble failed to establish by
 a preponderance of the evidence that her military service
 was a substantial or motivating factor in the agency’s se-
 lection decision. SAppx. 5–9. That finding made it unnec-
 essary to consider stages of a USERRA analysis reached
 only upon adequate proof on the threshold substantial-or-
 motivating-factor issue. See Erickson v. U.S. Postal Ser-
 vice, 571 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
     The administrative judge’s decision became the final
 decision of the Board on November 3, 2022. SAppx. 10. Ms.
 Trimble timely appealed on December 14, 2022. We have
 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(b)(1)(A).
                              II
     We will affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) ar-
 bitrary, 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). To prove a USERRA violation, the claimant
 “bears the initial burden of showing by a preponderance of
 the evidence that [her] military service was a substantial
 or motivating factor in the adverse employment action.”
 Erickson, 571 F.3d at 1368. Whether a veteran’s military
 service was a substantial or motivating factor in her non-
 selection is a factual question, and the Board’s answer is
 reviewed for substantial-evidence support. See Sheehan v.
 Department of the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1014 (Fed. Cir.
 2001). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as
 a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
 conclusion.” McLaughlin v. Office of Personnel Manage-
 ment, 353 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Matsu-
 shita Electric Industrial Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927,
 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “The petitioner [in this court, i.e.,
Case: 23-1276     Document: 24      Page: 5     Filed: 11/07/2023

 TRIMBLE v. DOJ                                                5

 Ms. Trimble] bears the burden of establishing error in the
 Board’s decision.” Harris v. Department of Veterans Af-
 fairs, 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
     Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
 Ms. Trimble failed to carry her initial burden to show that
 her military service was a substantial or motivating factor
 in her non-selection. The Board heard testimony from all
 three of Ms. Trimble’s interviewers about what occurred
 during Ms. Trimble’s interview. SAppx. 5–9. The testi-
 mony was, among other things, that one of the alleged com-
 ments was never made and the other had been made in the
 course of conversation without any animus. SAppx. 5–6.
 The Board found their testimony credible. SAppx. 6. Given
 that finding, and the content of the statements and ques-
 tions on which Ms. Trimble relies, we have no basis for dis-
 turbing the findings under the applicable deferential
 standard of review. See, e.g., Frey v. Department of Labor,
 359 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
     Ms. Trimble also contends that the Board erred in not
 requiring proof from ATF—or even definitively determin-
 ing—that, after the initial selectee withdrew her ac-
 ceptance of the job offer, it was actually too late to offer her
 the position. This contention provides no ground for dis-
 turbing the Board’s ruling. It was Ms. Trimble who bore
 the burden of proving that her non-selection was motivated
 by her military service. See Erickson, 571 F.3d at 1368.
 Here, the selecting official testified that he was informed
 by Human Resources, after the initial selectee withdrew,
 that it was “too late to move forward with another selec-
 tion.” SAppx. 9. The Board credited that testimony of “re-
 liance on” the information, without further inquiry into
 whether or not Human Resources was correct, as a nondis-
 criminatory reason for ATF’s not turning to Ms. Trimble
 after the initial selectee withdrew. SAppx. 9. Ms. Trimble
 has provided no contrary evidence that supports disturbing
 the Board’s analysis on this aspect of the case.
Case: 23-1276    Document: 24      Page: 6     Filed: 11/07/2023

 6                                              TRIMBLE v. DOJ

      We also see no merit in Ms. Trimble’s contention that
 the Board applied the wrong law because it did not take
 account of veterans’ preference statutes. USERRA does
 not “‘provide a remedy to veterans who are not given pref-
 erences in employment decisions.’” Trimble v. Department
 of Veterans Affairs, 2023 WL 4287197, at *3 (quoting Wil-
 born v. Department of Justice, 230 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir.
 2000) (unpublished table decision)). As we have previously
 noted, claims of improper denial of a statutory preference
 for veterans “are properly raised under the Veterans Em-
 ployment Opportunities Act of 1998.” Trimble v. Depart-
 ment of Homeland Security, 2023 WL 5921627, at *2 n.4.
 Ms. Trimble’s separate VEOA claims regarding the facts at
 issue here are addressed in Trimble v. Department of Jus-
 tice, No. 2023-1277 (Fed. Cir. November 7, 2023).
                             III
     We have considered Ms. Trimble’s other arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons,
 the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is af-
 firmed.
     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                        AFFIRMED