Calhoun v. Department of the Army
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 556
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Sequestration under the Budget Control Act and subsequent orders required across-the-board federal spending cuts for FY2013, prompting DoD civilian furloughs.
- Victoria Calhoun, a non-excepted civilian Doctrine Defense Specialist at Army Cyber Command (ACC), received notice proposing furlough and submitted a written reply and an oral presentation with budget proposals to avoid furlough.
- ACC’s deciding official authority was delegated by the designated commander (Lt. Gen. Hernandez) to his Chief of Staff, Col. Scott Sanborn, who reviewed Calhoun’s written reply and emailed reasons for denying exemption.
- Calhoun was furloughed six nonconsecutive days in July–August 2013; she appealed to the MSPB arguing the furlough did not promote efficiency, her proposals were not considered, and improper delegation/due process occurred.
- The MSPB and the Federal Circuit panel upheld the furlough: they found the furlough a reasonable management response to sequestration, that Col. Sanborn considered Calhoun’s submissions, and that the delegation and procedures did not produce harmful error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether furlough promoted efficiency of service | Calhoun: furlough unnecessary; her budget fixes would avoid cuts | Army: sequestration forced budget shortfall; furloughs were reasonable management response | Held for Army — furlough was reasonable management solution to sequestration constraints |
| Whether deciding official properly considered Calhoun’s replies | Calhoun: oral reply summary not provided; proposals not meaningfully considered | Army: Col. Sanborn reviewed written reply and had appropriate, limited authority | Held for Army — substantial evidence Col. Sanborn reviewed submissions; no harmful procedural error |
| Whether delegation violated DoD policy (no further delegations/minimum rank) | Calhoun: delegation to Col. Sanborn breached policy and rank requirement | Army: policy allows designation to an official no lower than local installation commander or equivalent; delegation here lawful | Held for Army — Board’s interpretation reasonable; Col. Sanborn met the standard |
| Whether Board composition or process violated due process | Calhoun: two-member panel, improper designations, other procedural defects | Army: two-member panels permitted; procedures followed; no prejudice shown | Held for Army — no due process or procedural error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Einboden v. Dep’t of Navy, 802 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (agency meets "efficiency of the service" standard if furlough is a reasonable management solution and employees selected fairly)