Case: 21-1690 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 06/08/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, UNITED
STATES CAPITOL POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Respondent
______________________
2021-1690
______________________
Petition for review of an arbitrator's decision in No.
FMCS 200318-04975 by Jane Rigler.
______________________
SUA SPONTE
______________________
Before NEWMAN, PROST, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Fraternal Order of Police, United States Capitol Police
Labor Committee (“FOP”) appeals from an arbitration de-
cision upholding a decision by the U.S. Park Police to re-
move an employee.
Case: 21-1690 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 06/08/2022
2 FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE v. INTERIOR
Appeals from arbitration decisions in this context are
governed by
5 U.S.C. § 7121(f), which states that “section
7703 of this title pertaining to judicial review shall apply
to the award of an arbitrator in the same manner and un-
der the same conditions as if the matter had been decided
by the [Merit Systems Protection] Board [‘MSPB’].” The
referenced section in turn states that “[a]ny employee or
applicant for employment adversely affected or aggrieved
by a final order or decision of the [MSPB] may obtain judi-
cial review of the order or decision.”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1).
We have held that “Congress, in using the term ‘em-
ployee’ in § 7703(a)(1) and in defining that term to mean an
individual, has exercised its legislative prerogative to im-
pose a prudential limitation on the exercise of this court’s
jurisdiction over adverse decisions of the MSPB.” Reid v.
Dep’t of Com.,
793 F.2d 277, 284 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (emphasis
added) (footnote omitted). We have therefore concluded
that an organization (like FOP) lacks standing to appeal
from an MSPB or arbitration decision because it is not an
individual.
Id. at 280, 283–84 (MSPB decision); Senior Ex-
ecs. Ass’n v. OPM, No. 95-3460,
1997 U.S. App. LEXIS
10023, at *9–10 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 1997) (nonprecedential)
(MSPB decision); AFGE Local 3438 v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No.
21-1972, slip op. at 2, 4–6 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2022) (non-
precedential) (arbitration decision). And we have accord-
ingly dismissed organizations’ appeals from MSPB or
arbitration decisions for lack of jurisdiction. Senior Execs.
Ass’n, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS, at *9–10; AFGE Local 3438,
slip op. at 6. 1
1 Although previous panels considering this issue
have sometimes addressed the prospect of the appellant or-
ganization satisfying the associational-standing test set
forth in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Com-
mission,
432 U.S. 333 (1977), we see no reason why—even
assuming that FOP could satisfy the Hunt test here (which
Case: 21-1690 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 06/08/2022
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE v. INTERIOR 3
Because FOP is not an individual, it lacks standing to
appeal from the arbitrator’s decision under
5 U.S.C.
§§ 7703(a)(1) and 7121(f). We therefore dismiss this appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
FOP’s petition for review is dismissed. Each party
shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
June 8, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
may be doubtful, see Reid,
793 F.2d at 279–80)—doing so
would resolve the separate issue posed by
5 U.S.C.
§§ 7703(a)(1) and 7121(f), which together limit the right to
appeal from arbitration decisions to individuals.
