Court Opinion

ID: 9406208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 14:00:52.933808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:28.028759
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1307   Document: 18     Page: 1   Filed: 06/30/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   AISHA TRIMBLE,
                       Petitioner

                            v.

      DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                   Respondent
             ______________________

                       2023-1307
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-4324-22-0350-I-1.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: June 30, 2023
                 ______________________

    AISHA TRIMBLE, Dallas, TX, pro se.

     DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.
                  ______________________

 Before HUGHES, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1307     Document: 18     Page: 2    Filed: 06/30/2023

 2                                             TRIMBLE   v. DVA

     Ms. Aisha Trimble appeals a decision from the Merit
 Systems Protection Board (MSPB) denying her request for
 corrective action under the Uniformed Services Employ-
 ment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).
 Because the Board’s conclusion is supported by substantial
 evidence, we affirm.
                               I
     Ms. Trimble is a veteran who has service-connected
 disabilities rated at 30% or greater. In November 2021, she
 applied for an Executive Assistant position with the Board
 of Veterans Appeals (the agency). On November 16, 2021,
 the agency notified Ms. Trimble that it would “assess [her]
 qualifications based upon [her] resume, the responses [she]
 provided in the questionnaire, as well as all other materials
 requested in the job opportunity announcement.” SAppx3. 1
 On December 10, 2021, the agency notified Ms. Trimble
 that she had been referred to the hiring manager.
      After accepting applications, the agency identified
 around 500 candidates, including about 92 individuals who
 were 30% or more disabled veterans. Six executives acted
 as the selecting officials and reviewed certificates of eligi-
 ble candidates and applications. The selecting officials
 rated candidates as either meriting or not meriting an in-
 terview based on the candidates’ ability or experience in
 four areas: (1) supporting a senior executive (or equivalent)
 in the Federal service; (2) overseeing or leading tasks or
 programs involving compliance with deadlines or organiza-
 tional change; (3) working collaboratively with executives,
 peers, and subordinates; and (4) supporting operations in a
 judicial or quasi-judicial environment. One of the selecting
 officials listed Ms. Trimble as a “maybe” for an interview,

     1   We use “SAppx” to refer to the appendix attached
 to the government’s response brief, and “Appx” to refer to
 the appendix attached to Ms. Trimble’s opening brief.
Case: 23-1307       Document: 18    Page: 3    Filed: 06/30/2023

 TRIMBLE   v. DVA                                             3

 but she was not one of the 26 individuals ultimately inter-
 viewed.
      Ms. Trimble was notified that she had not been selected
 for an Executive Assistant position on February 9, 2022. Of
 the six individuals given offers, this record indicates that
 four are veterans or have prior military service, and two of
 those veterans have service-connected disability ratings of
 at least 30%.
                               II
     This is the second of two related appeals from Ms.
 Trimble. On March 17, 2022, Ms. Trimble filed a complaint
 with the Department of Labor alleging a violation of her
 right to compete as a preference-eligible veteran. After the
 agency denied her claim, she filed two appeals with the
 Merit Systems Protection Board. The first sought correc-
 tive action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities
 Act of 1998 (VEOA). See Trimble v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs.,
 23-1306, slip op. (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2023) (per curiam). The
 second, which led to the current appeal, sought corrective
 action under the Uniformed Services Employment and
 Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).
     In the USERRA appeal, the Board held an evidentiary
 hearing over two days on October 19, 2022 and October 24,
 2022. During the hearing, all six selecting officials testified
 for the agency. The Board summarized the relevant testi-
 mony in its final decision as follows:
     All the panelists testified the review process for the
     appellant was the same as the process for other
     candidates, including the selectee[s]. They all ex-
     pressed favorable views of veterans in the work-
     force. Four of the panelists are veterans, two are
     disabled veterans, and both Human Resources per-
     sonnel involved in this action are disabled veter-
     ans. Four of the selectees are veterans, and three
     are disabled veterans. Two of the selectees have
Case: 23-1307     Document: 18      Page: 4   Filed: 06/30/2023

 4                                             TRIMBLE   v. DVA

     the same service-connected disability rating as the
     appellant.
 Appx15. The Board found that the agency witnesses were
 credible “in their explanations of their selection decisions
 and denials of discriminatory animus.” Appx15. The Board
 also credited at least five of the witness’ testimony that
 they were looking for a candidate who had experience
 working at the agency or had experience supporting execu-
 tives in the Federal Government. Based on the evidence
 developed at the hearing, the Board concluded that there
 was no direct or circumstantial evidence that Ms. Trimble’s
 military service was a motivating factor for non-selection.
    Ms. Trimble appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                              III
     We set aside the Board’s decision only if it is “(1) arbi-
 trary, 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). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence
 as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
 a conclusion.” McLaughlin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 353 F.3d
 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
                              IV
     We affirm the Board’s decision denying Ms. Trimble’s
 USERRA claim because substantial evidence supports that
 Ms. Trimble’s military service was not a motivating factor
 in her non-selection.
     An employee who makes a discrimination claim un-
     der USERRA bears the initial burden of showing
     by a preponderance of the evidence that [their] mil-
     itary service was a substantial or motivating factor
     in the adverse employment action. If the employee
Case: 23-1307       Document: 18   Page: 5    Filed: 06/30/2023

 TRIMBLE   v. DVA                                            5

     makes that prima facie showing, the employer can
     avoid liability by demonstrating, as an affirmative
     defense, that it would have taken the same action
     without regard to the employee’s military service.
 Erickson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 571 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed.
 Cir. 2009). Here, the Board concluded that Ms. Trimble had
 not made a prima facie showing that her military service
 was a motivating factor in her non-selection. To reach that
 conclusion, the Board credited the selecting officials’ testi-
 mony that they hold favorable views of veterans in the
 workforce, they applied the same review process to all ap-
 plicants, and they were generally looking for candidates
 who had experience working at the agency or had experi-
 ence supporting executives in the Federal Government or
 a judicial support role. The Board also credited one select-
 ing official’s testimony that, while he listed her as a
 “maybe” for an interview, he ultimately did not interview
 Ms. Trimble because her resume reflected no Federal expe-
 rience and no judicial support experience. Also relevant to
 showing a lack of discrimination was the evidence that four
 of the selecting officials were veterans (and two of those
 were disabled veterans), both HR specialists involved in
 hiring for this role are disabled veterans, and multiple of
 the selectees were veterans, including a veteran with the
 same disability rating as Ms. Trimble. This evidence—in-
 cluding the selecting officers’ testimony, the HR specialists’
 testimony, and the Board’s credibility determinations—
 constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s
 conclusion.
     Ms. Trimble argues that the selection of at least one
 non-veteran shows at least one selecting official “did not
 want to hire a veteran or honor laws that grant veterans
 preferences for federal jobs.” Pet. Br. 4–5. Not only is this
 speculation belied by the evidence discussed above, but
 “claimants must show evidence of discrimination other
 than the fact of non-selection and membership in the pro-
 tected class.” Sheehan v. Dep’t of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1015
Case: 23-1307     Document: 18     Page: 6    Filed: 06/30/2023

 6                                             TRIMBLE   v. DVA

 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The mere fact that at least one of the se-
 lectees is not a member of the protected class cannot make
 out a prima facie case of discrimination.
      Ms. Trimble also argues that the agency discriminated
 against her because it preselected candidates and hired in-
 dividuals with less experience than her. But the Board in a
 USERRA appeal is not tasked with determining who is best
 qualified for a position. Rather, the question for the Board
 is whether Ms. Trimble’s military service was a motivating
 factor in her non-selection. See Becker v. Dep’t of Veterans
 Affs., 474 F. App’x 761, 762 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[R]egardless
 of how the facts were evaluated as to the respective quali-
 fications of the candidates, Becker needed to show that his
 military service was a substantial factor in his non-selec-
 tion to establish his USERRA claim.”). The Board credited
 testimony that the selecting officials were looking for a spe-
 cific type of experience: supporting executives in the Fed-
 eral government or a supporting role in a judicial context.
 Although Ms. Trimble may have more years of one type of
 experience, Ms. Trimble’s resume did not reflect the pre-
 ferred type of experience. This is substantial evidence that
 Ms. Trimble’s military service was not a motivating factor
 in her non-selection.
      Ms. Trimble also argues that she was entitled to veter-
 ans’ preference. But “while USERRA prevents the denial of
 a promotion on the basis of military service, it does not it-
 self provide a remedy to veterans who are not given prefer-
 ences in employment decisions.” Wilborn v. Dep’t of Just.,
 230 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (unpublished table deci-
 sion). The proper statutory hook for this argument is the
 VEOA, which is addressed in our related opinion issued to-
 day. Trimble v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 23-1306, slip op.
 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2023) (per curiam).
     Ms. Trimble also argues that the Board did not produce
 evidence showing the hearing was not rehearsed, asserts
 without evidence that documents were falsified, and
Case: 23-1307       Document: 18    Page: 7    Filed: 06/30/2023

 TRIMBLE   v. DVA                                             7

 speculates about bias. But it was Ms. Trimble who had the
 burden of proof. At best, Ms. Trimble’s accusations reflect
 her own opinions and are not part of the record. As dis-
 cussed above, substantial evidence supports the Board’s
 conclusion that her military service was not a motivating
 factor for non-selection.
      Finally, Ms. Trimble alleges that one or more of the se-
 lecting officials illegally accessed her medical records or VA
 claim files. First, this argument is forfeited because it was
 not raised before the Board. Bosley v. Merit. Sys. Prot. Bd.,
 162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Second, even if not for-
 feited, there is no evidence that any of the officials accessed
 her medical records or claim file. Ms. Trimble placed a
 FOIA request seeking the names of individuals who ac-
 cessed her records. None of the names identified through
 this request match the names of the selecting officials.
 Moreover, one of the selecting officials testified that he did
 not access her medical records or claim file, and Ms. Trim-
 ble concedes that she forgot to ask the other officials about
 this issue. Thus, no evidence supports Ms. Trimble’s sub-
 jective belief that a selecting official accessed this infor-
 mation.
                               V
     We have considered Ms. Trimble’s remaining argu-
 ments and do not find them persuasive. Because substan-
 tial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Ms.
 Trimble’s military service was not a motivating factor for
 non-selection, we affirm.
                         AFFIRMED
 No costs.