Jones v. Hhs
17-2310
| Fed. Cir. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- John Paul Jones III, a Vietnam veteran, applied for a Public Health Advisor (International Program Director) position at HRSA and received a five-point veterans' preference.
- The vacancy required one year of specialized public health experience in international health programs and several public-health-related knowledge/skill elements.
- Three HRSA subject-matter experts (active duty Commissioned Corps officers) independently reviewed Jones’s resume and concluded he lacked the required specialized public health experience.
- Jones sought relief under VEOA and USERRA: he alleged HRSA failed to credit all material experience (VEOA) and that nonselection was motivated by his military service and prior USERRA appeals (USERRA).
- The MSPB held a hearing, credited the experts’ testimony that Jones’s experience was largely clinical and not public/international public health, and found no evidence that military service or prior USERRA activity motivated the nonselection.
- The Board denied relief; Jones appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed, finding the Board’s decision supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| VEOA — Did HRSA fail to credit all material experience? | Jones: HRSA omitted/undervalued qualifying medical/healthcare experience and experts were unqualified. | HRSA: Experts reviewed qualifications, applied vacancy criteria, and found no specialized public/international public health experience. | Affirmed — Board credited experts; agency’s evaluation supported by substantial evidence. |
| VEOA — Was Jones denied a bona fide opportunity to compete? | Jones: Implied denial via failure to credit experience. | HRSA: Jones was referred, given preference points, and considered. | Affirmed — Jones was afforded opportunity to compete. |
| USERRA — Was military service a substantial or motivating factor in nonselection? | Jones: Prior service or prior USERRA appeals motivated adverse action. | HRSA: No direct or circumstantial evidence of animus; experts did not consider military service; service ended decades earlier. | Affirmed — No preponderant evidence of motivating factor; temporal gap and credible expert testimony negate nexus. |
| USERRA — Did circumstantial evidence (timing, hostility, disparate treatment) support discrimination? | Jones: Alleged systemic veteran discrimination and past adverse remarks/delays. | HRSA: Experts unaware of hostility; experts themselves are active service members; no proximity in time. | Affirmed — Sheehan factors do not show discriminatory motive; allegations not tied to this hiring decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallagher v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 274 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir.) (substantial evidence defined as what a reasonable mind might accept)
- Hogan v. Dep’t of the Navy, 218 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir.) (credibility and substantial-evidence standards)
- Abell v. Dep’t of the Navy, 343 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (VEOA ensures veterans can compete for positions open under merit promotion procedures)
- Pope v. U.S. Postal Serv., 114 F.3d 1144 (Fed. Cir.) (appellate court defers to credibility determinations)
- Sheehan v. Dep’t of the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir.) (USERRA burden-shifting and relevant circumstantial factors)