Renu B. Lal v. Department of Health and Human Services
Background
- Appellant Renu B. Lal was appointed as a Distinguished Consultant in the excepted service under 42 U.S.C. § 209(f) and was terminated effective May 28, 2014 without notice or a chance to respond.
- Lal appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) claiming national-origin discrimination and challenging the termination.
- An administrative judge and the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding § 209(f) appointees were not "employees" with appeal rights.
- The Federal Circuit reversed, holding the 1990 Due Process Amendments extended MSPB jurisdiction to such employees (821 F.3d 1376).
- On remand the Board found Lal met the statutory criteria in 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C), concluded the agency violated Lal’s Loudermill due‑process rights by imposing removal without notice and an opportunity to respond, and reversed the removal.
- The Board remanded for adjudication of Lal’s unaddressed national‑origin discrimination claim and ordered rescission of the removal, back pay, interest, and administrative steps to effect restoration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: Whether § 209(f) appointees are MSPB "employees" with appeal rights | Lal: § 209(f) appointees are employees covered by the Due Process Amendments and 5 U.S.C. § 7511 | Agency: § 209(f) appointees are not "employees" entitled to Board appeals | Held: Reversed the Board; Federal Circuit held the 1990 Amendments extend MSPB jurisdiction (821 F.3d 1376); Board accepts and finds Lal is an "employee" |
| Due process: Whether agency denied minimum constitutional due process before removal | Lal: Termination without notice or chance to respond violated Loudermill rights | Agency: Did not contest lack of pre‑removal process in Board decision | Held: Agency violated minimum due‑process; removal reversed for failure to provide Loudermill hearing/notice |
| Remedy: Whether rescission and back pay are required and appropriate relief | Lal: Seeks restoration, back pay, interest, and benefits | Agency: Must implement Board's order but had previously argued lack of jurisdiction | Held: Ordered cancellation of removal, retroactive restoration to May 28, 2014, and payment of back pay, interest, and benefits within set timeframes |
| Discrimination claim: Whether Lal’s national‑origin discrimination claim must be decided now | Lal: Claim remains unresolved due to prior jurisdictional dismissal and seeks adjudication | Agency: Claim was never adjudicated because of dismissal | Held: Remanded to regional office to adjudicate the discrimination claim on the merits (remand required even if relief granted on other grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lal v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 821 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Federal Circuit held Due Process Amendments extend MSPB jurisdiction to § 209(f) appointees)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (public employees entitled to pre‑termination notice and opportunity to respond as minimum due process)
- Kerr v. Nat’l Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (orders on restoration and effective date for retroactive reinstatement)
- Schibik v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 98 M.S.P.R. 591 (M.S.P.B. 2005) (agency removal reversed for failure to provide constitutionally required pre‑removal process)