Anthony W. Broussard v. United States Postal Service
Background
- Appellant Anthony W. Broussard was an EAS-21 Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) Manager with USPS; USPS announced a VMF reorganization in May 2015 that could require RIFs and proposed eliminating his position.
- On May 22, 2015 Broussard requested and, effective May 30, 2015, accepted a noncompetitive reassignment to an EAS-19 VMF Manager position (accepted with 2 years saved grade/pay).
- Broussard appealed to the MSPB on July 6, 2015, alleging his acceptance of the lower-graded position was involuntary (coercion/misinformation/limited options) and requested a hearing.
- The administrative judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without a hearing, finding Broussard failed to nonfrivolously allege coercion, misinformation, or unreasonable time pressure sufficient to render the downgrade involuntary.
- Broussard petitioned for review; the Board denied review and affirmed the initial decision, holding Broussard did not rebut the presumption that acceptance of a lower grade was voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the downgrade was involuntary due to coercion from RIF pressure | Broussard: agency limited competitive area and left him no realistic alternative but to take the downgrade or be released | USPS: choice to accept the lower grade was voluntary and RIF procedures/competitive area were proper | Held: Not involuntary; unpleasant choices do not equal coercion; appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege coercion |
| Whether agency misinformation made acceptance involuntary | Broussard: management assured a later promotion and said downgrade was temporary/formality; relied on that to stay on rolls | USPS: agency in fact offered a promotion (EAS-25) soon after; no allegation that promotion was conditioned on taking the downgrade | Held: Not involuntary; appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege detrimental, reasonable reliance on misinformation |
| Whether the time given to decide was unreasonably short (coercive) | Broussard: 21 days to accept downgrade or be separated was coercive | USPS: the timeframe was reasonable; precedent shows shorter periods were acceptable | Held: Not involuntary; 21 days is not an unreasonable time constraint |
| Whether Board should consider alleged OPM guideline violations in reorganization | Broussard: agency violated OPM guidance by limiting local placement options | USPS: jurisdictional issue controls; absent appealable involuntary action, Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate reorg/O PM claims | Held: Board lacks jurisdiction to address reorganization/OPM claims because appellant failed to show an appealable involuntary action |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Department of Transportation, 106 M.S.P.R. 520 (2007) (nonfrivolous allegation standard for Board jurisdiction in involuntary downgrade claims)
- Staats v. U.S. Postal Service, 99 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (coercive involuntariness requires objective showing of imposed terms, no realistic alternative, and improper agency acts)
- Conforto v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 713 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (involuntariness assessed by objective reasonable-employee standard)
- Soler-Minardo v. Department of Defense, 92 M.S.P.R. 100 (2002) (decision between demotion and possible removal does not necessarily render demotion involuntary; time constraints analyzed)
- Herrin v. Department of the Air Force, 95 M.S.P.R. 536 (2004) (misinformation can render acceptance involuntary if materially relied upon to the employee's detriment)
- Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Board lacks jurisdiction to consider matters beyond appealable actions)