DLA MARITIME v. Department of Defense
Background
- Two DLA Maritime employees (Williams and Schesser) were placed on a discontinuous furlough in summer 2013 (reduced to 6 days) due to sequestration-related budget shortfalls affecting DoD and DLA.
- The agency followed adverse action (chapter 75) procedures: provided written proposal notices, opportunity to reply, and a decision notice describing the basis for furloughs and directing employees to supporting materials (including a CAR on the Board website).
- Appellants challenged (among other things) the sufficiency of the agency’s justification and supporting materials, the method for calculating/allocating furlough days, denial of requests to choose furlough days, and the agency’s use of overtime before/during furlough.
- The administrative judge upheld the furloughs, finding the agency proved the factual basis and that the furlough promoted the efficiency of the service; appellants appealed to the full Board.
- The Board denied the petitions for review, finding no basis to disturb the initial decision: agency met its burden and the appellants failed to show harmful error or matters within the Board’s review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of agency evidence that furlough was necessary and how number of days was calculated | Williams/Schesser: agency did not provide materials showing necessity or calculation methodology | Agency: provided proposal/decision notices, cited DoD memoranda, statutes, and CAR; employees had access to materials | Held: Agency met burden to show furlough was reasonable; provided sufficient information; appellants did not show harmful error |
| Access to and adequacy of supporting materials | Williams: either denied access or materials were unresponsive; wanted more detail | Agency: provided notice of right to review materials and directed to CAR; no denial shown | Held: Board found appellant either had access or failed to show denial; no entitlement to additional information beyond what was provided |
| Ability to choose furlough days / scheduling decisions | Williams: should have been allowed to select furlough days (had preplanned vacation) | Agency: scheduling/furlough-day allocation is managerial discretion; MOA specified discontinuous days (first/last day of week) | Held: Board will not review agency scheduling decisions among non‑similarly situated employees; MOA supported discontinuous scheduling; argument rejected |
| Use of overtime to avoid/mitigate furlough | Schesser: agency could have paid overtime instead of furlough (misallocation) | Agency: use of overtime to meet mission is discretionary, nonreviewable; no showing that overtime relieved furlough impacts selectively | Held: Agency’s spending/operational use of overtime is nonreviewable discretionary decision; no evidence of inconsistent application to relieve furlough effects |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Personnel Management v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 829 F.2d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (addressing bargaining obligations and agency discretion regarding furlough scheduling proposals)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (explaining the strict statutory deadline for appeals to the Federal Circuit)
- Gilmore v. U.S. Postal Service, [citation="262 F. App'x 276"] (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discussing standard that errors must be shown harmful to overturn agency action)