Sutton v. Department of Veterans Affairs
671 F. App'x 781
Fed. Cir.2016Background
- Sutton applied for a Supervisory Contract Specialist position with the VA; OPM deemed his transcripts insufficient to meet the education requirement and found him ineligible.
- Sutton filed two appeals with the MSPB: (1) that OPM engaged in an improper employment practice under 5 C.F.R. part 300, and (2) that the VA violated his veterans’ preference rights under the VEOA.
- The Board issued a final decision denying Sutton’s VEOA claim in August 2015; Sutton did not timely appeal that decision to the court.
- In December 2015 an administrative judge dismissed the employment-practices claim for lack of jurisdiction as it alleged a procedural irregularity rather than a challenge to a rule or practice.
- The Board’s April 2016 final decision affirmed the dismissal and held that any attempts to relitigate the VEOA claim were barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel.
- Sutton appealed to the Federal Circuit challenging the Board’s jurisdictional dismissal and asserting VEOA violations; the court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSPB has jurisdiction over Sutton’s claim that OPM improperly evaluated his transcripts as part of the selection process | Sutton: OPM’s decision to deem his transcripts insufficient was an improper employment practice appealable to the Board | Government: Sutton challenged an individual determination/selection irregularity, not an employment practice, so the Board lacks jurisdiction | Held: No jurisdiction — the claim alleges an irregularity in an individual selection decision, not a rule or practice challenge |
| Whether Sutton can relitigate his VEOA claim to the court after the Board’s final VEOA decision | Sutton: VA violated his veterans’ preference rights under VEOA and Board erred | Government: The Board’s earlier final VEOA decision was not timely appealed and thus bars relitigation (res judicata/collateral estoppel) | Held: VEOA arguments barred — earlier final Board decision stands and was not timely appealed |
Key Cases Cited
- Prewitt v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 133 F.3d 885 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (distinguishes non-appealable individual selection decisions from appealable employment practices)
- Johnston v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard of review: scope of Board jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)