Court Opinion

ID: 9908215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:00:54.505667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:06.390573
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2086   Document: 29     Page: 1    Filed: 12/08/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                    FRANCIS YOMI,
                       Petitioner

                            v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                       2023-2086
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. SF-0752-16-0764-I-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: December 8, 2023
                 ______________________

    FRANCIS YOMI, Santa Fe, NM, pro se.

     ALLISON JANE BOYLE, Office of General Counsel,
 United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent.
                   ______________________

 Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and STARK, Circuit
                        Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-2086    Document: 29     Page: 2    Filed: 12/08/2023

 2                                              YOMI v. MSPB

     Francis Yomi appeals a decision of the Merit Systems
 Protection Board (Board) dismissing his appeal for lack of
 jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Yomi was hired to the competitive service position
 of Physical Science Technician by the Department of the
 Navy on July 7, 2014. S. Appx. 7–8. 1 His employment was
 subject to a one-year probationary period. Id. at 76. On
 August 28, 2014, management officials informed Mr. Yomi
 he was being terminated for poor performance. Id. at 21.
 In response, Mr. Yomi resigned, effective the same date.
 Id.
      Mr. Yomi filed an administrative appeal to the Board,
 alleging the Navy breached his employment contract,
 failed to provide him with a termination letter, and “forced
 [him] to resign in lieu of terminating him.” Id. at 21–23.
 The administrative judge (AJ) issued an initial decision
 dismissing Mr. Yomi’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction be-
 cause Mr. Yomi failed to non-frivolously allege he had qual-
 ifying appeal rights as a probationary employee. Id. at 7–
 10. Specifically, the AJ concluded Mr. Yomi was not an
 “employee” with appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1),
 and he failed to make allegations that would qualify him
 for the limited appeal rights for probationary employees
 under 5 C.F.R. § 315.806. Id. at 8–9. The AJ also con-
 cluded, to the extent Mr. Yomi was alleging discrimination
 or retaliation, the Board did not have jurisdiction because
 he did not allege an otherwise appealable action. Id.
     Mr. Yomi filed a petition for review with the Board. Id.
 at 79–85. The Board denied Mr. Yomi’s petition for review
 and affirmed the AJ’s initial decision. Id. at 1–2. Mr. Yomi

     1   “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
 tached to Respondent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 23-2086     Document: 29     Page: 3    Filed: 12/08/2023

 YOMI v. MSPB                                                3

 appeals. We have jurisdiction 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). Whether the Board lacks jurisdiction is a
 question of law we review de novo. Forest v. Merit Sys.
 Prot. Bd., 47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
       To establish Board jurisdiction, the individual appeal-
 ing a personnel action must qualify as an “employee” under
 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1). McCormick v. Dep’t of Air Force, 307
 F.3d 1339, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also 5 U.S.C.
 § 7513(d). As an individual in competitive service, Mr.
 Yomi qualifies as an employee if he “is not serving a proba-
 tionary or trial period under an initial appointment” or
 “has completed 1 year of current continuous service under
 other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or
 less.” 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A). The Board properly con-
 cluded Mr. Yomi does not meet this definition. At the time
 of his resignation, Mr. Yomi was “serving a probationary
 . . . period.” See 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A)(i). His employ-
 ment ended on August 28, 2014—only seven weeks into his
 one-year probationary period. S. Appx. 8, 21. He therefore
 does not qualify as an “employee” with statutory appeal
 rights under § 7511(a)(1)(A).
      As a probationary employee, Mr. Yomi may only appeal
 to the Board under 5 C.F.R. § 315.806. Mastriano v. Fed.
 Aviation Admin., 714 F.2d 1152, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
 (“The only cognizable right of appeal by a probationary em-
 ployee to the [Board] is contained in . . . 5 C.F.R.
 § 315.806.”). To appeal under this regulation, Mr. Yomi
 must allege (1) his termination “was based on partisan po-
 litical reasons or marital status”; or (2) the agency proposed
Case: 23-2086     Document: 29      Page: 4   Filed: 12/08/2023

 4                                                YOMI v. MSPB

 termination based at least in part on pre-appointment rea-
 sons and failed to follow the procedural requirements of 5
 C.F.R. § 315.805 (i.e., notice of the proposed adverse action,
 an opportunity to respond, and notice of the adverse deci-
 sion). 5 C.F.R. § 315.806.
      Mr. Yomi does not allege he was terminated based on
 partisan political reasons or marital status, or that the
 Navy proposed his termination based on pre-appointment
 reasons. See S. Appx. 21–23. Mr. Yomi has therefore not
 established appeal rights under 5 C.F.R. § 315.806. Ac-
 cordingly, the Board properly dismissed Mr. Yomi’s appeal
 for lack of jurisdiction. 2
                         CONCLUSION
      We have considered Mr. Yomi’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.

     2    Mr. Yomi argues the Navy terminated him in retal-
 iation for protected whistleblowing disclosures. Appel-
 lant’s Informal Opening Br., Attachment 1 at 1, 3–4. This
 claim, however, does not confer independent Board juris-
 diction absent an otherwise appealable action. See Cruz v.
 Dep’t of the Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (en
 banc). As discussed above, Mr. Yomi has failed to allege
 any such appealable action. The Board properly concluded
 that to the extent Mr. Yomi alleged a retaliation claim, it
 lacked jurisdiction over such claim. S. Appx. 9.