Court Opinion

ID: 9910369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 16:01:20.619483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:29.142623
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1793    Document: 18    Page: 1   Filed: 12/15/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 DONNIE E. RAINEY, II,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1793
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-00511-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
                  ______________________

                Decided: December 15, 2023
                  ______________________

    DONNIE EUGENE RAINEY, II, Portsmouth, VA, pro se.

     EVAN WISSER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
 vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
 DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REGINALD
 THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

     Before LOURIE, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1793    Document: 18      Page: 2    Filed: 12/15/2023

 2                                               RAINEY v. US

 PER CURIAM
     Donnie E. Rainey, II appeals pro se from a decision of
 the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims
 Court”) granting summary judgment in favor of the govern-
 ment that Rainey was not entitled to severance pay under
 5 U.S.C. § 5595. Rainey v. United States, No. 22-511 C,
 2023 WL 2062298 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 17, 2023) (“Decision”). For
 the following reasons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Rainey is a former civilian employee of the United
 States Navy (“the Navy”). Decision at *1. Rainey devel-
 oped a medical condition that made it challenging for him
 to perform his job duties. Id. After several attempts to
 provide reasonable accommodations at his current position
 that proved ineffective, the Navy offered to reassign him.
 Id. Ten months later, on March 9, 2021, the Navy informed
 Rainey that it was unable to find a suitable position for re-
 assignment. Id. Then, on November 30, 2021, the Navy
 informed Rainey that he would be involuntarily separated
 from the Navy effective December 3, 2021, because he was
 unable to perform his job duties and reasonable accommo-
 dations were not feasible. Id.
     On December 2, 2021, Rainey requested severance pay
 under 5 U.S.C. § 5595. Id. The Navy denied his request
 and informed Rainey that he was not eligible for severance
 pay because he was eligible for an immediate annuity
 through Federal Employees’ Retirement System disability
 benefits. Id. Rainey’s communications with the Navy con-
 tinued for several months. Id. In February 2022, the Office
 of Personnel Management (“the OPM”) advised the Navy
 that Rainey could apply for severance, but that he would
 have to repay any severance he received if his disability re-
 tirement was later approved. Id. Based on this infor-
 mation, Rainey chose to file for severance pay. Id. On April
 8, 2022, the Navy again denied his request but this time,
 informed Rainey that the Navy could not authorize sever-
 ance pay because he was eligible for an immediate
Case: 23-1793    Document: 18      Page: 3    Filed: 12/15/2023

 RAINEY v. US                                               3

 retirement annuity through disability retirement benefits
 regardless whether or not he had actually applied to re-
 ceive that annuity. Id.
      On April 19, 2022, Rainey applied to the OPM for disa-
 bility retirement benefits. Id. at *2. The OPM approved
 his application on July 28, 2022, id., and Rainey received
 his first disability benefits payment on August 22, 2022,
 Informal Reply Br. at 3. In October 2022, Rainey received
 a payment for retroactive disability retirement benefits da-
 ting back to his separation date. Id. at 3–4.
     On May 9, 2022, Rainey filed suit in the Claims Court
 seeking the unpaid severance. Decision at *1. The Claims
 Court granted the government’s motion for summary judg-
 ment, concluding that eligibility for an immediate annuity
 precludes eligibility for severance pay based on the regula-
 tions implementing 5 U.S.C. § 5595 and that Rainey’s dis-
 ability retirement benefits qualified as an immediate
 annuity. Id. at *3–4. Rainey timely appealed, and we have
 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                         DISCUSSION
     “We review the summary judgment of the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims, as well as its interpretation and application of
 the governing law, de novo.” Authentic Apparel Grp., LLC
 v. United States, 989 F.3d 1008, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (in-
 ternal quotation marks and citation omitted). Summary
 judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that
 there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” R. Ct.
 Fed. Cl. 56(a).
      On appeal, Rainey requests payment of unpaid sever-
 ance under 5 U.S.C. § 5595. Rainey also seeks consequen-
 tial damages caused by the lack of immediate severance
 pay. Rainey argues that he is entitled to severance pay un-
 der the statute because his disability retirement benefits
 were not an immediate annuity as determined by the
 Claims Court. Informal Br. of Appellant at 6–9. Under his
 proposed construction, an immediate annuity is a
Case: 23-1793    Document: 18      Page: 4    Filed: 12/15/2023

 4                                               RAINEY v. US

 retirement benefit that begins payment within 31 to 90
 days of separation. Id. His disability benefits payments
 did not begin until August 22, 2022, eight and a half
 months after his separation. Id. at 7. He therefore argues
 that these benefits are not an immediate annuity that
 would preclude eligibility for severance pay. Id.
     As the Claims Court did, we begin with the language of
 the statute itself, which provides:
     (b) Under regulations prescribed by the President
     or such officer or agency as he may designate, an
     employee who—
     (1) has been employed currently for a continuous
     period of at least 12 months; and
     (2) is involuntarily separated from the service, not
     by removal for cause on charges of misconduct, de-
     linquency, or inefficiency;
     is entitled to be paid severance pay in regular pay
     periods by the agency from which separated.
     ...
 5 U.S.C. § 5595(b). There is no dispute that Rainey meets
 the requirements of (1) and (2) stated above. However, the
 statute also states that severance pay is subject to “regula-
 tions prescribed by the President or such officer or agency
 as he may designate.” 5 U.S.C. § 5595(b). The regulations
 implementing 5 U.S.C. § 5595 provide that:
     (b) An employee is not eligible for severance pay if
     he or she:
     ...
     (5) Is eligible upon separation for an immediate an-
     nuity from a Federal civilian retirement system or
     from the uniformed services. . . .
 5 C.F.R. § 550.704(b) (emphasis added). Rainey does not
 dispute that eligibility for an immediate annuity bars eli-
 gibility for severance pay under the implementing
Case: 23-1793     Document: 18     Page: 5    Filed: 12/15/2023

 RAINEY v. US                                                 5

 regulations. Rainey cites various cases and the OPM’s
 website to argue that actual payment of a benefit needs to
 occur within 31 days of separation, or alternatively 90 days
 at most, for the benefit to qualify as an immediate annuity.
 See Informal Br. of Appellant at 6–9. However, the imple-
 menting regulations provide the following definition of an
 immediate annuity:
     Immediate annuity means–
     (a) A recurring benefit payable under a retirement
     system applicable to Federal civilian employees or
     members of the uniformed services that the indi-
     vidual is eligible to receive (disregarding any offset
     described in § 550.704(b)(5)) at the time of the in-
     voluntary separation from civilian service or that
     begins to accrue within 1 month after such separa-
     tion, excluding any Social Security retirement ben-
     efit;
     ...
 5 C.F.R. § 550.703 (emphasis added). The key language
 here is that the benefit “begins to accrue within 1 month
 after such separation.” Id. It is the accrual of the benefit,
 rather than the timing of its payment, that determines its
 status as an immediate annuity under the applicable reg-
 ulatory language. There is no dispute that Rainey began
 receiving disability benefits in August of 2022 and, two
 months later, received retroactive benefits dating back to
 his separation date. See Informal Reply Br. at 3–4. Rainey
 has received payment of disability retirement benefits da-
 ting back to his separation date because those benefits be-
 gan to accrue within 1 month of his separation date.
 Rainey’s disability retirement benefits are therefore an im-
 mediate annuity based on plain language of the regulation
 regardless how long it took to receive them. He therefore
 is not entitled to severance pay.
     Rainey argues that this is “an absurd construction of a
 statutory provision [that] should be avoided” because it
 was Congress’s intent for recently separated employees to
Case: 23-1793      Document: 18       Page: 6    Filed: 12/15/2023

 6                                                  RAINEY v. US

 have an immediate source of income through severance ra-
 ther than retroactive benefits paid at some later date. See
 Informal Br. of Appellant at 9 (quoting Witco Chem. Corp.
 v. United States, 742 F.2d 615, 619 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). How-
 ever, Rainey’s failure to receive payment more quickly is
 largely the result of his failure to apply for disability retire-
 ment benefits for nearly five months following his separa-
 tion. See Decision at *1–2. Under Rainey’s proposed
 construction, a former employee eligible for an immediate
 annuity could simply delay his application for the annuity
 to be eligible for severance at separation and also receive
 retroactive benefits from an annuity when he later applies.
 An interpretation that allows former government employ-
 ees to game the system and collect on two forms of payment
 for the same time period is instead the construction that
 should be avoided.
     Because Rainey is not entitled to severance pay under
 5 U.S.C. § 5595 and for other independent reasons not nec-
 essary to go into here, he also cannot be entitled to conse-
 quential damages based on the Navy’s failure to pay
 severance upon his separation. The Claims Court was
 therefore correct to grant summary judgment in favor of
 the government.
                          CONCLUSION
      We have considered Rainey’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm.
                          AFFIRMED
                              COSTS
 No costs.