Bobbi A. Williams v. Department of the Air Force
Background
- The appellant (Williams) was converted into NSPS in 2007 and later to a GS-12 HR advisor in 2010; she previously challenged that classification to the MSPB and lost when the Board found classification not appealable.
- In March 2015 her position was reclassified to GS-9 (with 2 years saved grade); in June 2015 it was changed to GS-12 Recruitment & Placement.
- Williams alleged the agency placed her in the wrong series in 2010, causing lost promotion opportunities, and claimed the March 2015 reduction to GS-9 was retaliatory for an earlier grievance she filed.
- She filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in March 2015 asserting retaliation; OSC initially considered closing and ultimately closed the file, affording appeal rights to MSPB.
- The administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction: classification matters are not appealable; Williams’ employment-practice allegations were conclusory; and her Individual Right of Action (IRA) claim was unexhausted at the time of filing because OSC had not yet completed its process.
- On petition for review the Board affirmed the initial decision, denied review, and noted a separate IRA appeal was docketed after OSC closed its matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board has jurisdiction to review the classification of Williams’ position | Williams: Agency misclassified her position (wrong series/grade), causing lost career opportunities and harm | Agency: Classification decisions are not appealable to the Board; no reduction in grade or pay that the Board can redress | Held: Board lacks jurisdiction over classification decisions; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Williams stated a viable employment-practices claim under MSPB jurisdiction | Williams: Long delay in correcting series and disparate treatment violated merit system principles / OPM regulations | Agency: Facts are conclusory and generalized; no nonfrivolous allegation of an employment practice or improper job analysis | Held: Employment-practices claim insufficiently pleaded; Board lacks jurisdiction over that theory |
| Whether the Board had jurisdiction over an IRA claim (retaliation under 5 U.S.C. § 2302) at time of filing | Williams: Change to GS-9 was retaliatory and she filed OSC complaint, so MSPB should hear the IRA now | Agency: OSC remedies not exhausted; OSC had not closed investigation and 120 days had not elapsed when she filed with MSPB | Held: At time of filing IRA claim was unexhausted; administrative judge properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; after OSC closed a separate IRA appeal was docketed |
| Timeliness / procedural sufficiency of appeal | Williams: Maintained OSC complaint was pending and later closed; requested hearing | Agency: Moved to dismiss as untimely and for lack of jurisdiction | Held: Board affirmed lack of jurisdiction as dispositive; noted OSC closure allowed a separate IRA appeal to be pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. Department of the Navy, 117 M.S.P.R. 511 (2012) (Board lacks jurisdiction to review agency classification decisions)
- Holse v. Department of Agriculture, 97 M.S.P.R. 624 (2004) (an individual agency decision that is not a rule or practice is not an appealable employment practice)