Walker v. Department of the Navy

Decision Date18 February 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-3228,96-3228
Citation106 F.3d 1582
PartiesMoise J. WALKER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

M. Jefferson Euchler, Neil C. Bonney & Associates, P.C., Virginia Beach, VA, argued, for petitioner. With him on the brief was Neil C. Bonney.

Lesleyanne K. Kessler, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., argued, for respondent. With her on the brief were Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Kirk T. Manhardt, Assistant Director.

Before PLAGER, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges.

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

Moise J. Walker (Mr. Walker) appeals from the March 28, 1996, order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), Docket No. DA3443960007-I-1, which adopted the initial decision of the administrative judge dismissing Mr. Walker's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.


On November 5, 1993, Mr. Walker suffered an injury to his lower back while he was employed as a GS-4 police officer with the United States Department of the Navy (the agency). Due to this injury, Mr. Walker was unable to perform the tasks required of his position, including, inter alia, being able to stand and walk for eight hours, crawl and kneel for five hours, and lift and carry in excess of 45 pounds. As a result, he was placed on leave without pay on December 21, 1993.

For some time, Mr. Walker received workers' compensation benefits for his back injury. These benefits were discontinued on December 10, 1994, because Mr. Walker's physician, Dr. Butler, approved his return to work with certain restrictions. Specifically, Dr. Butler indicated that Mr. Walker could work eight hours per day, but that he should permanently limit his participation in any kneeling, bending or lifting.

On February 3, 1995, Mr. Walker returned to work as a police officer, but instead of assuming the normal duties of a police officer, he was detailed to the position of mail and file clerk, pending clarification of his medical restrictions. In a letter dated March 17, 1995, Dr. Faust, an orthopedic surgeon hired by the Navy, concluded that Mr. Walker was incapable of performing the necessary duties of a police officer, specifically with regard to lifting and carrying in excess of 45 pounds.

Because of his medical condition, the agency offered Mr. Walker the position of Mail and File Clerk, GS-4, on March 30, 1995. When Mr. Walker declined this offer, the agency reassigned him from his position as police officer, GS-4, step 6, to the comparable pay, grade and step position of police officer dispatcher, GS-4, step 6, effective April 30, 1995. On the same day, the agency promoted GS-4 Police Officers within the security division to the position of GS-5 Police Officer, as a result of a change in the classification standards for the position.

On September 25, 1995, Mr. Walker filed an appeal with the Board, arguing that his reassignment was effectively a constructive demotion. The administrative judge advised Mr. Walker that it appeared that the Board may not have jurisdiction over his appeal, and that he bore the burden of proving the existence of jurisdiction. When Mr. Walker subsequently failed to prove that he met the physical qualification requirements for the position of Police Officer, the administrative judge dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the administrative judge dismissed the case on this basis, he did not address the apparent untimely filing of the appeal.

The administrative judge's decision became final when the Board denied review on March 28, 1996. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b) (1996). Mr. Walker appeals from the Board's decision, which we review under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (1994). We must affirm the Board's decision unless it is found to be:

(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law;

(2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule or regulation having been followed; or

(3) unsupported by substantial evidence.

5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (1994); Rosete v. Office of Personnel Management, 48 F.3d 514, 516 (Fed.Cir.1995).


The Board has only that jurisdiction conferred on it by Congress, and the burden of establishing the Board's jurisdiction rests with the petitioner. Perez v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 85 F.3d 591, 593 (Fed.Cir.1996); Manning v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 742 F.2d 1424, 1426 (Fed.Cir.1984). With regard to claims involving an employee's reassignment, the Board ordinarily possesses jurisdiction only if the agency's action resulted in a reduction in grade or pay. See 5 U.S.C. § 7512 (1994); Artmann v. Department of Interior, 926 F.2d 1120, 1122 (Fed.Cir.1991). Hence, the Board normally lacks jurisdiction to review the reassignment of an employee who does not suffer a loss of grade or pay. Thomas v. United States, 709 F.2d 48, 49 (Fed.Cir.1983).

Even if the reassignment does not facially indicate a reduction in grade or pay, the Board possesses jurisdiction if the employee's reassignment constitutes a constructive demotion. See Artmann, 926 F.2d at 1123; Russell v. Department of Navy, 6 MSPB 585, 6 M.S.P.R. 698, 711 (1981). To establish a constructive demotion claim, the employee must demonstrate that (i) the employee was reassigned from a position which, due to the issuance of a new classification standard or correction of classification error, is entitled to a higher grade, and (ii)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Ugarte v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 19, 1999
    ...action not affecting grade or pay is not subject to MSPB and Federal Circuit review under the statute. See Walker v. Department of the Navy, 106 F.3d 1582, 1584 (Fed.Cir.1997); Jennings v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 59 F.3d 159, 160 (Fed.Cir.1995); Broadway v. Block, 694 F.2d 979, 982 ......
  • Squires v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • July 3, 2019
    ...Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., No. 2008-3251, 2009 WL 82720, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2009) (per curiam) (unpublished); Walker v. Dep't of the Navy, 106 F.3d 1582, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1997); cf. 5 U.S.C. § 7512(3), (4); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a)(1). This jurisdictional rule applies even if a reassignment re......
  • Myles v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • June 24, 2022
    ... ...           Galina ... I. Fomenkova, Civil Division, United States Department of ... Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant ...           ... Myles was administratively discharged from the United States ... Navy ("Navy") for misconduct related to ... unauthorized absences in 2005. Twelve years later, he ... 10 U.S.C ... § 1201(a); see, e.g. , Walker v. Dep't ... of the Navy , 106 F.3d 1582, 1585 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ... (holding that a ... ...
  • Benavidez v. Dep't of the Navy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • March 8, 2001
    ...and be able to resume his work, putting him on leave without pay would be an appropriate temporary measure. Cf. Walker v. Dep't of the Navy, 106 F.3d 1582, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (employee who injured his back was placed on leave without pay until he could return to work). We know of no case......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT