Reddick v. Federal Deposit Insurance
809 F.3d 1253
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Timothy Reddick held a two-year term appointment with the FDIC beginning Sept. 2010; the initial term was to expire Sept. 2012.
- In April 2012 the FDIC offered a two-year extension effective September 2012; Reddick accepted the offer shortly after receipt.
- The extension offer included an explicit effective date (September 2012) and referenced continued satisfactory performance as a condition.
- The FDIC revoked the accepted extension in August 2012 (after acceptance but before the extension’s effective date); Reddick’s employment ended at the initial term’s expiration.
- Reddick filed a grievance asserting the revocation was a § 7512 “removal” entitling him to procedural protections; an arbitrator denied the grievance, finding the offer conditional and revocation justified.
- The court considered whether the accepted-but-revoked extension had become an irrevocable appointment such that revocation constituted a removal under 5 U.S.C. § 7512.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation of an accepted extension before its stated effective date qualifies as a “removal” under 5 U.S.C. § 7512 | Reddick: acceptance made the extension irrevocable; revocation is a removal subject to § 7512 protections | FDIC: offer remained revocable until the extension became effective (per effective-date language and standard personnel forms); no removal occurred | Revocation did not constitute a § 7512 removal; court lacks jurisdiction and appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (describing CSRA as a comprehensive personnel system limiting judicial review)
- Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (discussing limits on independent review under civil service statutes)
- Prewitt v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 133 F.3d 885 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (failure to appoint is not an adverse action under § 7512)
- Goutos v. United States, 552 F.2d 922 (Ct. Cl. 1977) (SF-52 execution is critical to effecting appointments)
- Skalafuris v. United States, 683 F.2d 383 (Ct. Cl. 1982) (SF-52/SF-50 serve as primary evidence of appointment effectiveness)
- Miller v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 794 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (withdrawn offer prior to appointment is not an appealable adverse action)