Ward v. United States Postal Service
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5121
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Ward, USPS maintenance mechanic, was remov ed for the August 19, 2008 incident; Notice limited to that incident.
- Deciding official relied on ex parte communications about prior misconduct and considered them in Douglas factor analysis.
- Board found error in the ex parte analysis but sustained the removal penalty.
- On appeal, this court vacated, remanding to the Board to apply the Stone framework and to perform harmless-error analysis if due-process issues were found.
- The remand proceeded without the court retaining jurisdiction, the case later settled, and Ward sought EAJA attorney’s fees for the appellate proceedings.
- The issue is whether Ward is a “prevailing party” under EAJA given remand due to agency error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ward is a prevailing party under EAJA. | Ward qualifies as prevailing party per Former Employees. | USPS contends remand alone does not ensure prevailing party status. | Ward is a prevailing party under EAJA. |
| Whether a remand without court-retained jurisdiction can confer prevailing party status. | Former Employees allows remand-based status without jurisdiction retained. | Remand alone should not confer prevailing status absent merits victory. | Remand without retention of jurisdiction can confer prevailing party status under EAJA when agency error requires remand. |
| How Buckhannon, Hudson, and Schaefer govern the merits requirement for prevailing party status. | Remand-based relief can qualify as ‘prevailing’ under EAJA per circuit precedent. | Merits-based victory is required for prevailing party status. | Court aligns with Buckhannon-based understanding that relief on merits is required; here remand due to agency error qualifies under Former Employees prong. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (prevailing status requires relief on the merits or consent decree; catalyst theory rejected)
- Hudson v. Sullivan, 490 U.S. 877 (1989) (remand to agency for reconsideration; success depends on remand outcome)
- Schaefer v. Bowen, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (Sentence 4 remands terminate litigation with victory; retained jurisdiction matters)
- Schaefer and Scarborough line of EAJA remand cases, 541 U.S. 401 (2004) (remand to VA can confer prevailing status; Scarborough addresses EAJA in remand context)
- Former Employees of Motorola Ceramic Prods. v. United States, 336 F.3d 1360 (2003) (formulates two-prong test for remand-based prevailing party status without jurisdiction retention)
- Kelly v. Nicholson, 463 F.3d 1349 (2006) (applies Former Employees rule to VA remand context)
- Gurley v. Peake, 528 F.3d 1322 (2008) (recognizes limits of remand-based EAJA relief)
- Davis v. Nicholson, 475 F.3d 1360 (2007) (applies Former Employees framework to VA remands)
- Vaughn v. Principi, 336 F.3d 1351 (2003) (remand-related EAJA status considerations)