Banks v. Merit Systems Protection Board , 854 F.3d 1360 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •   United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    PHYLLIS E. BANKS,
    Petitioner
    v.
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
    Respondent
    ______________________
    2017-1242
    ______________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in No. SF-0752-16-0381-I-1.
    ______________________
    Decided: April 18, 2017
    ______________________
    PHYLLIS E. BANKS, Inglewood, CA, pro se.
    KATRINA LEDERER, Office of the General Counsel,
    Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for
    respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK,
    KATHERINE M. SMITH.
    ______________________
    Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and DYK, Circuit
    Judges.
    2                                             BANKS   v. MSPB
    DYK, Circuit Judge.
    Phyllis E. Banks petitions for review of a decision by
    the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing
    her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Banks was hired by the Department of Veterans Af-
    fairs (“VA”) on July 26, 2015, as a Medical Support Assis-
    tant. Her appointment was in the excepted service and
    was subject to a one-year probationary period. On March
    2, 2016, within the one-year period, the VA notified Banks
    that the agency planned to terminate her due to perfor-
    mance issues. Rather than wait for the agency to termi-
    nate her, Banks chose to resign her position, effective
    March 15, 2016.
    Banks appealed to the Board, asserting that her res-
    ignation was involuntary and therefore constituted a
    constructive removal. See, e.g., Cruz v. Dep’t of Navy, 
    934 F.2d 1240
    , 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (en banc). In an initial
    decision dismissing Banks’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
    the administrative judge (“AJ”) found that Banks was not
    preference eligible and that the record contained no
    evidence of prior federal service. Given these facts and
    that Banks was still within her probationary period at the
    time of her alleged removal, the AJ concluded that Banks
    was not an “employee” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1) with
    the right to appeal adverse actions to the Board. The
    Board therefore lacked jurisdiction. The AJ further noted
    Banks’s allegations of a hostile work environment and
    retaliation, but concluded that these claims did not pro-
    vide the Board with jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)
    in the absence of non-frivolous allegations of an agency
    action independently appealable to the Board. See Garcia
    v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 
    437 F.3d 1322
    , 1335 (Fed. Cir.
    2006) (en banc). Banks petitioned the Board for review.
    BANKS   v. MSPB                                            3
    The Board upheld the AJ’s dismissal of Banks’s ap-
    peal for lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, the Board ad-
    dressed evidence not considered by the AJ indicating that,
    prior to being hired by the VA, Banks had been currently
    and continuously employed by the U.S. Postal Service for
    approximately three years as a Mail Handler. The Board
    concluded that this prior federal service did not give
    Banks a right to appeal because the Postal Service is not
    an “Executive agency” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii).
    The Board issued a final order dismissing Banks’s appeal
    for lack of jurisdiction.
    Banks petitioned for review of the Board’s final order.
    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
    DISCUSSION
    We review the Board’s jurisdictional determinations
    de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.
    See Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 
    154 F.3d 1313
    , 1316
    (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The Board’s statutory interpretations
    are reviewed for correctness as a matter of law.” Ellison v.
    Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 
    7 F.3d 1031
    , 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
    The Board’s jurisdiction is limited and extends only to
    actions “appealable to the Board under any law, rule, or
    regulation.” 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a). As relevant here, 5 U.S.C.
    § 7513(d) permits an “employee” to appeal certain adverse
    actions to the Board, including involuntary resignations
    that are deemed constructive removals. See, e.g., 
    Cruz, 934 F.2d at 1244
    . For the purpose of § 7513(d), however,
    the term “employee” is defined—in relevant part—as “an
    individual in the excepted service (other than a preference
    eligible)” who is either “not serving a probationary or trial
    period,” 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(i), or “has completed 2
    years of current continuous service . . . in an Executive
    agency,” 
    id. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii).
    An individual may qualify
    as an “employee” under either § 7511(a)(1)(C)(i) or (ii).
    See, e.g., Van Wersch v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
    
    197 F.3d 1144
    , 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
    4                                              BANKS   v. MSPB
    Because Banks was still serving her one-year proba-
    tionary period with the VA when she resigned, her only
    claim to the status of an “employee” turns on whether her
    three years with the Postal Service qualify as “current
    continuous service . . . in an Executive agency” under
    § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii). 1 In this regard, 5 U.S.C. § 105 provides
    that “[f]or the purpose of [Title 5], ‘Executive agency’
    means an Executive department, a Government corpora-
    tion, and an independent establishment.” The Postal
    Service is not an “Executive department” or a “Govern-
    ment corporation” as defined in relevant part under 5
    U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103. Instead the Postal Service is an
    “independent establishment of the executive branch of the
    Government of the United States.” 39 U.S.C. § 201; U.S.
    Postal Serv. v. Flamingo Indus. (USA) Ltd., 
    540 U.S. 736
    ,
    746 (2004) (“Congress, however, declined to create the
    Postal Service as a Government corporation, opting
    instead for an independent establishment.”).
    Despite 39 U.S.C. § 201, 5 U.S.C. § 104 provides that
    the Postal Service is not an “independent establish-
    ment”—and therefore not an “Executive agency”—for the
    purpose of Title 5. Section 104 states that “[f]or the pur-
    1   The Office of Personnel Management has exer-
    cised its authority under 5 U.S.C. § 7514 to promulgate
    regulations implementing § 7511. Under these regula-
    tions, “current continuous employment” is defined as “a
    period of employment or service immediately preceding an
    adverse action without a break in Federal civilian em-
    ployment of a workday.” 5 C.F.R. § 752.402. We have held
    that this regulation governs the interpretation of the term
    “current continuous service” under § 7511, see Wilder v.
    Merit Systems Protection Board, 
    675 F.3d 1319
    , 1322–23
    (Fed. Cir. 2012), and there is no contention that Banks’s
    employment with the Postal Service does not qualify as
    “current continuous service” under the statute.
    BANKS   v. MSPB                                             5
    pose of this title, ‘independent establishment’ means . . .
    an establishment in the executive branch (other than the
    United States Postal Service . . . ).” (emphasis added).
    Both the designation of the Postal Service as an “in-
    dependent establishment” in § 201 and the parenthetical
    exclusion of the Postal Service as an “independent estab-
    lishment” in § 104 were enacted by Congress in the Postal
    Reorganization Act (“PRA”). See Pub. L. No. 91-375 § 2, 84
    Stat. 719, 720 (1970); 
    id. § 6(c)(2),
    84 Stat. at 775. In the
    PRA, Congress sought to recast “the operation of the
    [P]ostal [S]ervice in ‘a business-like way,’” i.e., “to make
    the delivery of the mail a self-supporting enterprise.”
    Standard Oil Div., Am. Oil Co. v. Starks, 
    528 F.2d 201
    ,
    202 (7th Cir. 1975). In addition to insulating the Postal
    Service “from the political arena,” the PRA furthered this
    goal by broadly exempting the Postal Service from federal
    laws “dealing with the public or [f]ederal contracts, prop-
    erty, works, officers, employees, budgets or funds,” subject
    to certain enumerated exceptions. 
    Id. (quoting 39
    U.S.C.
    § 410(a)); see also, e.g., Beneficial Fin. Co. of N.Y. v. Dal-
    las, 
    571 F.2d 125
    , 128 (2d Cir. 1978).
    The legislative history of the PRA makes clear that
    civil service provisions governing personnel at other
    federal agencies would not apply wholesale to employees
    of the reorganized Postal Service. See S. Rep. No. 91-912,
    at 5–7 (1970) (“Senate Report”) (“Employees who have
    competitive status under the Civil Service Act of 1883
    shall automatically achieve career tenure under the
    postal career system, but thereafter the provisions of title
    5 . . . shall not apply to officers and employees of the
    Postal Service.”). In keeping with this goal, the PRA as
    amended omits the provisions governing adverse-action
    appeals to the Board from the listing of Title 5 provisions
    that remain applicable to the Postal Service. See 39
    U.S.C. § 410(b)(1). This omission accords with, inter alia,
    39 U.S.C. § 1005(a)(1)(A), which makes the adverse-action
    provisions applicable only to the extent that they are
    6                                              BANKS   v. MSPB
    consistent with collective-bargaining agreements that the
    Postal Service may make with its employees. See 
    id. (referring to
    “the provisions of chapter 75 of title 5”); see
    also Senate Report at 5–7 (recommending the “enact-
    ment” of collective bargaining agreements).
    The exclusion of the Postal Service as an “independ-
    ent establishment” in § 104 is consistent with the statuto-
    ry framework of the PRA that makes Title 5 applicable to
    the Postal Service only in piecemeal fashion. Relying in
    part on § 104’s exclusion, we have held that preference-
    eligible Postal Service employees may not seek attorneys’
    fees under the fee-shifting provision of the Back Pay Act,
    5 U.S.C. § 5596(b)(1)(A)(ii). See Erickson v. U.S. Postal
    Serv., 
    759 F.3d 1341
    , 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In Erickson,
    we held that the Back Pay Act does not apply to the
    Postal Service “by its own terms . . . because the Postal
    Service is not an ‘executive agency,’ the term . . . used to
    define the scope of the [Back Pay] Act’s coverage.” 
    Id. We reasoned
    that although § 105 defines an “executive agen-
    cy” as encompassing independent establishments, that
    term “is further defined to mean ‘an establishment in the
    executive branch (other than the United States Postal
    Service . . . ).’” 
    Id. at 1348
    (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 104). We
    therefore concluded that “[t]he Postal Service is . . . not an
    ‘executive agency’ within the meaning of title 5 in general
    and the Back Pay Act in particular.” 
    Id. We see
    no reason to depart from our conclusion in Er-
    ickson, which held that the provisions of § 104 displace,
    for the purpose of Title 5, the general characterization of
    the Postal Service as an “independent establishment” set
    forth in § 201. Id.; see also, e.g., RadLAX Gateway Hotel,
    LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 
    132 S. Ct. 2065
    , 2070–71
    (2012). Accordingly, the Postal Service does not fall into
    any of the categories that define an “Executive agency”
    under Title 5, which renders Banks’s service as a Mail
    Handler not “service . . . in an Executive agency” under
    § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii). As a consequence, Banks does not
    BANKS   v. MSPB                                         7
    qualify as an “employee” with a right to appeal adverse
    actions to the Board. See Van 
    Wersh, 197 F.3d at 1151
    .
    There being no action appealable to the Board under
    § 7701, the remaining issues raised in Banks’s appeal—
    her claims of retaliation and a hostile work environ-
    ment—lie outside the Board’s jurisdiction. See 
    Garcia, 437 F.3d at 1335
    . The Board’s final order dismissing Banks’s
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction is
    AFFIRMED
    COSTS
    No costs.