McGuffin v. Ssa, 942 F.3d 1099

Clarence McGuffin, a preference-eligible veteran, was hired by SSA as an attorney advisor on February 8, 2010 and would obtain CSRA (MSPB) rights after one year of employment.
SSA evaluates new attorney-advisors during their first year under a limited two-element plan (interpersonal skills; engages in new learning); the “fair share” productivity standard applies only after year one.
Supervisors began discussing terminating McGuffin by October 2010 and expressly sought to remove him before his one-year anniversary to avoid his acquiring MSPB appeal rights.
McGuffin received additional training in January 2011; his productivity (DWSI) improved markedly (from 46% to 80%) and he received some positive ALJ feedback.
SSA terminated McGuffin on February 4, 2011, four days before his one-year mark. The MSPB denied corrective action, but the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the record does not support the Board’s no-violation conclusion under USERRA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McGuffin’s preference-eligible veteran status was a motivating factor in the timing of his termination under USERRA	McGuffin: SSA explicitly rushed to fire him before his one-year anniversary to avoid vesting of CSRA/MSPB rights; contemporaneous emails show that motive.	SSA: Termination was for poor performance and lack of productivity, independent of veteran status.	Held for McGuffin: SSA’s decision to terminate four days before vesting was substantially motivated by his veteran status.
Whether SSA proved by preponderant evidence it would have taken the same action absent McGuffin’s veteran status (employer’s affirmative defense)	McGuffin: Documentary record (limited-year evaluation, positive reviews, post-training improvement) contradicts SSA’s claim of honest dissatisfaction.	SSA: Supervisors credibly testified they would have terminated any similarly poor performer after nearly a year of training.	Held for McGuffin: SSA failed to prove a valid, independent reason; documentary evidence undermined supervisors’ testimony, so substantial evidence does not support the Board.

Shaw v. United States, 622 F.3d 520 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (probationary removal requires honest dissatisfaction after fair trial on the job)
Hayes v. Department of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (standards for setting aside MSPB decisions)
Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (substantial-evidence standard defined)
In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (substantial-evidence review of agency findings)
Miller v. Department of Justice, 842 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (record must account for evidence that detracts from agency’s conclusion)
Erickson v. U.S. Postal Service, 571 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (employer cannot avoid USERRA by citing absences caused by military service)
Sheehan v. Department of the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (four-factor test for inferring USERRA discrimination)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (credibility findings cannot stand where contradicted by documentary evidence)
McMillan v. Department of Justice, 812 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (substantial-evidence review of MSPB factual determinations)
Jones v. Department of Health & Human Services, 834 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (documents may undercut witness credibility)