Snyder v. Department of the Navy
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7330
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Victoria Snyder, a civilian mechanical engineer at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren (a Navy Working Capital Fund (WCF) entity), was furloughed for six days in 2013 pursuant to Department of Defense (DOD) furloughs implemented after sequestration cuts.
- Snyder worked full time on a Lockheed Martin–funded CRADA project; Lockheed provided IRAD funds and the CRADA required returning unused funds at project completion.
- Snyder and Lockheed argued the CRADA funding was non‑appropriated/third‑party and thus her work should have been excepted from furloughs identified in the Secretary of Defense memorandum.
- Navy evidence showed Dahlgren employees’ salaries (including CRADA workers) are paid directly from the WCF, so furloughing Snyder conserved WCF funds at the time of the furlough.
- An MSPB administrative judge upheld the furlough as a reasonable management solution and found no unfair, uneven application; the Board issued a split vote order making the AJ’s decision final. Snyder appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AJ’s Initial Decision inadequately explained its reasoning | Snyder: AJ failed to analyze controlling law (CRADA statutes/regulations) and omitted summary of her briefing | Navy: AJ addressed material facts and legal issue, credited WCF payment testimony, and provided adequate reasoning | Court: AJ provided sufficient analysis; no requirement to address every argument; affirmed |
| Whether substantial evidence supports furlough given CRADA funding source | Snyder: CRADA funds were non‑Federal and not available to reduce DOD shortfall, so furlough did not promote efficiency | Navy: Regardless of project funding, salaries were paid from WCF; furlough conserved WCF funds and fit holistic budget response to sequestration | Court: Substantial evidence supports that Snyder was paid from WCF and furlough reasonably promoted efficiency; affirmed |
| Whether furlough was applied unfairly/unevenly (overtime evidence) | Snyder: Testimony showed some CRADA employees received overtime, indicating disparate treatment | Navy: Testimony was speculative; Snyder did not request overtime; Navy’s rebuttal evidence was properly admitted | Court: Fontenot’s testimony was speculative; no showing of denied requests or prejudice; admission of rebuttal was not reversible error; affirmed |
| Whether Snyder could invoke SECDEF exception (i) for non‑DOD pay | Snyder (in reply): her funding fit exception (i) for employees not paid directly from DOD‑Military accounts | Navy: Evidence shows payment was from WCF (DOD subfunction), and argument was not raised below | Court: Argument waived; even on merits, exception (i) did not apply because Snyder was paid from WCF; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. Dep’t of the Army, 845 F.3d 1176 (Fed. Cir.) (context of sequestration furlough litigation)
- Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps., Local 1442 v. Dep’t of the Army, 810 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir.) (upholding furloughs of WCF employees; holistic budget view)
- Einboden v. Dep’t of the Navy, 802 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir.) (same; agencies may view budgets holistically during sequestration)
- Whitmore v. Dep’t of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for MSPB decisions)
- Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir.) (agency need not address every argument)
- Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (U.S.) (arguments not raised before agency are forfeited)