Grayton v. Social Security Administration
683 F. App'x 952
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Maurice Grayton, an honorably discharged Marine, applied for a Social Security Administration (SSA) Claims Specialist position in March 2016 and submitted a resume and DD‑214.
- He claimed a 10‑point veterans preference but was awarded only 5 points because he did not submit documentation certifying disability status.
- Grayton was referred initially as a preference‑eligible candidate but was not recommended for a second interview and was not selected; all interviewed candidates were also preference‑eligible veterans.
- Grayton appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) alleging USERRA discrimination (military‑service motivated nonselection), and also raised VEOA and national‑origin claims; the Board heard testimonial and documentary evidence.
- The MSPB credited SSA HR and panel testimony that military service played no role in the nonselection and found the record devoid of evidence supporting discrimination based on uniformed service.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and declining to reach Grayton’s separate, pending VEOA/VRA claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSA violated USERRA by not selecting Grayton | Military service was a motivating factor; "but for" service he would be selected | Military service played no role; nondisclosure of disability docs explained lower rating and nonselection | Affirmed: Grayton failed to prove service was motivating factor |
| Whether Grayton should have received 10‑point veterans preference | He submitted DD‑214 and resume sufficient; entitled to 10 points | Lacked required disability documentation; awarded 5 points under rules | Not decided on appeal (pending separate Board appeal) |
| Whether federal court may review Grayton's VEOA/VRA claims now | Court should consider all claims on appeal | Board decision on USERRA is final; VEOA/VRA claims not finally decided | Court lacks jurisdiction over VEOA/VRA claims (premature) |
| Credibility of agency witnesses vs. applicant | Grayton contended statements and facts indicated targeting | Agency witnesses credibly testified no discrimination occurred | Court defers to Board credibility determinations and upholds them |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallagher v. Dep’t. of Treasury, 274 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Hogan v. Dep’t of Navy, 218 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (substantial evidence quotation cited)
- King v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 133 F.3d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (agency credibility findings are virtually unreviewable)
- Clark v. Dep’t of Army, 997 F.2d 1466 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (credibility deference to agency)
- Erickson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 571 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (USERRA burden‑shifting; plaintiff must show service was substantial or motivating factor)
- Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (appellate review limited to final Board decisions)