Johnson v. Merit Systems Protection Board
690 F. App'x 683
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Charles G. Johnson worked for USPS from 1960 and retired on November 20, 1992.
- In 1995 he challenged his retirement as involuntary (age discrimination); the Board found he had not shown his retirement was involuntary and the full Board declined review, warning that collateral estoppel would bar repeating that jurisdictional issue.
- In 2010 Johnson sought restoration, claiming his separation was due to a compensable work-related tinnitus and that he had since recovered; USPS denied restoration, and subsequent proceedings (2010–2014) concluded he had not shown sufficient recovery.
- Johnson filed a new Board appeal in 2015 again contesting involuntariness of retirement and the restoration denial; USPS invoked collateral estoppel based on the earlier Board rulings.
- The administrative judge and then the full Board applied issue preclusion, finding Johnson raised no materially different facts and made no nonfrivolous allegation of a restoration denial other than the 2010 request.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the Board correctly applied collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of both the voluntariness and restoration issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson's retirement was involuntary | Retirement was involuntary and should be relitigated | Prior Board ruling decided voluntariness; issue preclusion bars relitigation | Issue precluded; prior Board decision stands |
| Whether USPS improperly denied restoration based on compensable injury recovery | Johnson had recovered (or later recovered) and USPS wrongly denied restoration | Prior proceedings resolved lack of sufficient recovery; no new denial alleged | Restoration claim precluded as duplicative; no nonfrivolous new denial shown |
| Whether collateral estoppel elements are met | Johnson argued relitigation was permissible (implicitly contesting preclusion) | USPS argued identity of issues, prior litigation, necessity to judgment, and full/fair opportunity were satisfied | Court found all four collateral estoppel elements satisfied; applied issue preclusion |
| Whether Board abused discretion or lacked substantial evidence | Johnson argued Board decision was erroneous | USPS maintained Board acted within law and evidence | Court affirmed: decision not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Encarnado v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 116 M.S.P.R. 301 (2011) (sets elements for issue preclusion in MSPB context)
- Kroeger v. U.S. Postal Serv., 865 F.2d 235 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (discussion of collateral estoppel requirements)
- Morgan v. Dept. of Energy, 424 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (review standard for Board application of law)
- Johnson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 66 M.S.P.R. 604 (1995) (earlier Board decision finding no involuntary retirement and warning about collateral estoppel)