524 F. App'x 618
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Maiers served in the U.S. Army from 1969–1971; civilian federal service before 1980 accumulated 4y9m; returned to government service in 2010 with FDA (HHS) who enrolled him in FERS; Maiers argued CSRS Offset eligibility instead of FERS; Labor denied his USERRA complaint and/Maiers appealed to the Board on Aug. 5, 2011; Board affirmed that HHS was required to enroll in FERS and Maiers failed USERRA elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maiers is CSRS eligible despite FERS enrollment | Maiers contends five years CSRS civilian service should count his military service | HHS correctly enrolled in FERS; Maiers lacks five years civilian service | Maiers not CSRS eligible; USERRA claim fails on this basis |
| Whether USERRA supersedes federal retirement law to count military service toward CSRS | USERRA should allow counting military service toward CSRS five-year requirement | No implicit superiority of USERRA over federal retirement law; Butterbaugh not controlling | USERRA does not override CSRS eligibility rules; no counting of military service allowed |
| Whether Butterbaugh controls analysis over Sheehan for USERRA claim | Butterbaugh obviates the need to show substantial motivating factor | Butterbaugh applies only where benefits are military-only; CSRS is civilian too | Board correctly applied Sheehan; Butterbaugh not controlling here |
Key Cases Cited
- Conner v. Office of Pers. Mgmt, 104 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (CSRS eligibility prerequisites context)
- Tirado v. Dep’t of Treasury, 757 F.2d 263 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (five-year civilian service threshold precedes military credit)
- Tizo v. Office of Pers. Mgmt, 325 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (military service excluded from five-year CSRS requirement under 1948 rules)
- Villanueva v. Office of Pers. Mgmt, 980 F.2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (military and civilian service eligibility distinctions under CSRS)
- Butterbaugh v. Department of Justice, 336 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Butterbaugh excludes substantial-factor requirement where benefits are military-only)
- Sheehan v. Dep’t of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (USERRA analysis requires denial of a benefit and substantial motivating factor)
- Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (statutory construction principle for plain-language interpretation)