Bledsoe v. Merit Systems Protection Board
659 F.3d 1097
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Bledsoe, a USPS employee, was injured in 2005 and partially recovered, working a modified light duty assignment beginning in 2008.
- In 2010, under the National Reassessment Process, USPS informed Bledsoe that suitable work within her restrictions was not available locally.
- Bledsoe appealed to the MSPB; the Board required jurisdictional proof and set a close-of-record deadline with potential extensions for new, material evidence.
- The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding no nonfrivolous allegations that the denial of restoration was arbitrary and capricious.
- Bledsoe later submitted an amended jurisdictional statement referencing three ‘Door Monitor’ positions after the record close; the Board treated this as untimely evidence.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s dismissal, holding that partially recovered employees have limited, jurisdictional rights under 5 C.F.R. § 353.304(c) and that the record did not show arbitrarily and capriciously denied restoration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board jurisdiction is limited and must be proven by petitioner | Bledsoe asserts jurisdiction based on restoration denial. | MSPB contends jurisdiction only exists if nonfrivolous jurisdictional allegations are shown and proven by preponderance. | Jurisdiction requires nonfrivolous allegations proven by preponderance. |
| Whether 5 C.F.R. § 353.304(c) elements were met | Postal Service arbitrarily denied restoration; elements satisfied. | No nonfrivolous showing of arbitrarily and capriciously denial; no vacancy evidence. | Petitioner failed to prove all four elements; denial not shown arbitrary and capricious. |
| Effect of untimely post-record evidence on jurisdiction | New information shows vacancies; should affect jurisdiction. | Evidence submitted after close of record is untimely and not considered for jurisdiction. | Untimely post-record evidence does not establish jurisdiction and is not dispositive. |
| Pendent discrimination claim | Discrimination claim relates to restoration denial. | Pendent claim is not appealable absent an appealable adverse action. | Pendent discrimination claim appropriately dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322 (Fed.Cir. 2006) (Board jurisdiction is limited to statutory/regulatory grants; not plenary)
- Palmer v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 550 F.3d 1380 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (partial recovery jurisdictional framework under § 353.304(c))
- Gallo v. United States, 529 F.3d 1345 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (absolute right to restoration within one year of injury)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010) (distinguishes jurisdictional rules from claim-processing requirements)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court 2006) (threshold jurisdictional limits; textual labeling matters)
- Spruill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 978 F.2d 679 (Fed.Cir. 1992) (nonfrivolous allegations govern initial jurisdiction)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (Supreme Court 2011) (discipline in using the term jurisdiction; jurisdictional labeling has real consequences)
- Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen, 130 S. Ct. 584 (Supreme Court 2009) (starting presumption of jurisdiction when conferred by statute)