Carpenter v. Department of the Navy
671 F. App'x 777
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Scott Carpenter, a mechanical engineer at NSWC Carderock, was furloughed for six days under the FY2011 sequestration response. Appeals of Carderock employees were consolidated before the MSPB.
- Carpenter served interrogatories seeking (No.12) counts/hours of workers exceeding 64 hours/pay period and (No.15) detailed process for determining individual furlough hours.
- The Administrative Judge originally denied the motion to compel; the MSPB limited discovery to "similarly situated" Carderock civilians and ordered narrower production.
- The Agency produced overtime/comp time records for Carderock scientists and engineers at West Bethesda/Washington Navy Yard and a general description of its furlough method.
- The AJ and the Board held the Agency complied with discovery and that the furlough promoted the efficiency of the service; Carpenter appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery for Interrogatory No.12 (who is "similarly situated") | Carpenter: discovery should include all DoD furloughed employees (broader comparators). | Navy/Board: comparators limited to same organizational unit/geographic location per RIF principles. | Board within discretion to limit to NSWC Carderock employees in similar occupations/geography. |
| Scope of discovery for Interrogatory No.15 (details of furlough structuring) | Carpenter: sought detailed information about how furlough hours were allocated. | Navy/Board: detailed internal structuring beyond MSPB review scope; general method description sufficient. | Board did not abuse discretion in accepting general description and declining broader detail. |
| Burden to prove furlough "promotes efficiency of the service" | Carpenter: Agency must show funding cuts directly affected the funds paying him. | Navy: need only show furlough bore nexus to an undisputed funding shortage; agency budgeting/prioritization receives deference. | Substantial evidence supports Board: nexus to funding shortage shown; Einboden controls; furlough affirmed. |
| Review standard for procedural/discovery rulings | Carpenter: Board abused discretion and discovery limits were harmful. | Board: abuse must be clear and harmful; here limits were within discretion. | No clear, harmful abuse of discretion; discovery rulings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Einboden v. Department of the Navy, 802 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (agency need only show furlough bore a nexus to an undisputed funding shortage to meet efficiency-of-service standard)
- Curtin v. Office of Personnel Management, 846 F.2d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (abuse-of-discretion standard for overturning MSPB discovery rulings; harm required)
- Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (panel cannot overrule prior precedential decisions)