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-driven budget shortfalls and related DOD funding constraints.
- The appeals consolidated several employee challenges; Williams and Schesser filed petitions for review after the administrative judge affirmed the furlough as promoting the efficiency of the service.
- Williams argued he was not given adequate evidence justifying the furlough, was not provided the basis for the number of furlough days, and was improperly denied the ability to select his furlough days.
- Schesser argued the agency’s use of overtime before and during the furlough undermined the asserted financial necessity and was inconsistent/uniformly applied.
- The Board held that the agency met its burden to show the furlough was a reasonable management response to budget constraints, that the employees received required notice and access to materials, and that scheduling and overtime allocation decisions were largely nonreviewable agency management choices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of agency evidence for furlough necessity | Williams/Schesser: DLA did not show the furlough was necessary or how number of days was calculated | DLA: Provided proposal/decision notices, Secretary of Defense memorandum, statutory basis, and CAR materials showing financial constraints and rationale | Held: Agency met its burden; Board affirmed that furlough was a reasonable management solution to sequestration-driven cuts |
| Access to supporting materials | Williams: Denied meaningful access to materials and explanation | DLA: Provided notice, right to review materials, and directed employees to CAR and DLA furlough website | Held: Williams either received or could have accessed materials; no showing of denial or harmful error |
| Choice/allocation of furlough days | Williams: Should have been allowed to choose furlough dates (requested contiguous days for planned vacation) | DLA: Scheduling decisions are management prerogative; MOA specified discontinuous furloughs | Held: Scheduling/allocation of furlough days among non‑similarly situated employees is beyond Board review; MOA supported discontinuous schedule |
| Use of overtime during/around furlough | Schesser: Agency could pay overtime so furlough unnecessary; overtime use was inconsistent | DLA: Overtime to meet mission needs is a discretionary spending/management decision | Held: Board will not substitute judgment on discretionary overtime spending; absent a showing that overtime relieved some employees of furlough effects, claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Personnel Management v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 829 F.2d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (discusses duty to bargain over furlough scheduling proposals)
- Gilmore v. U.S. Postal Service, [citation="262 F. App'x 276"] (Fed. Cir. 2008) (harmful error standard in administrative appeals)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (strict enforcement of filing deadlines for appeals to the Federal Circuit)