Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
AISHA TRIMBLE, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent ______________________
2023-1278 ______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DA-4324-22-0332-I-1. ______________________
Decided: September 12, 2023 ______________________
AISHA TRIMBLE, Dallas, TX, pro se.
RAFIQUE OMAR ANDERSON, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. ______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2023
PER CURIAM. Aisha Trimble appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying her request for corrective action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). For the fol- lowing reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Ms. Trimble is an honorably discharged veteran who served on active duty in the United States Army from Au- gust 1996 to June 2000. Appx. 11. 1 In January of 2022, Ms. Trimble applied for the position of Executive Assistant in the Region 6 team of the Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency (FEMA) in Denton, Texas. Id. Ms. Trimble was initially selected as one of the best qualified candidates and was invited to interview for the position, along with five other candidates. Id. Those interviews were con- ducted by a three-person panel including the FEMA Region 6 Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, who chaired the panel, and two other Region 6 officials. Id. Based on its interviews, the panel scored and recommended candidates for hiring to the Region 6 Regional Administrator, who acted as the selecting official. Id. at 11–12. Ms. Trimble was ultimately not selected for the Execu- tive Assistant position, which was instead offered to an- other, non-veteran interviewee. Id. at 12. Ms. Trimble appealed that decision to the Board, arguing her non-selec- tion violated USERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., which pro- hibits, inter alia, discrimination in hiring decisions based on an applicant’s prior military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a). The Board denied Ms. Trimble’s request for cor- rective action under USERRA. See Trimble v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. DA-4324-22-0332-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 7,
1 Citations to “Appx.” refer to the appendix attached to the Respondent’s Informal Brief. Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 09/12/2023
TRIMBLE v. DHS 3
2022) (reproduced at Appx. 10–17). In particular, the Board found Ms. Trimble failed to demonstrate by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that her status as a veteran was a substantial or motivating factor for her non-selection, Appx. 13–17, a required element of a USERRA claim. Ms. Trimble timely appealed to this Court. 2 We have jurisdic- tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). DISCUSSION We must uphold the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without proce- dures required by law, rule, or regulation having been fol- lowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). To prove a USERRA violation, the claim- ant “bears the initial burden of showing by a preponder- ance of the evidence that his military service was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employ- ment action.” Erickson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 571 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Whether a veteran’s military service was a substantial or motivating factor in her non-selection is a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. See Sheehan v. Dep’t of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1013–14 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
2 This is not the first appeal in which Ms. Trimble has alleged a USERRA violation because of her non-selec- tion for the position of Executive Assistant within a gov- ernment agency. In Trimble v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 2023-1307, 2023 WL 4287197 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2023) (non-precedential), which involved substantially similar al- legations, we upheld the Board’s finding that Ms. Trimble failed to prove her non-selection for an Executive Assistant position within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was the result of military service-based discrimination. Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 09/12/2023
conclusion.” McLaughlin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 353 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Matsuhita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Ms. Trimble failed to carry her initial burden to show her military service was a substantial or motivating factor in her non-selection. The Board reviewed the testimony of Ms. Trimble and each of the interviewing officials and found no evidence of any animus toward Ms. Trimble be- cause of her status as a veteran. Appx. 14–16. Ms. Trimble acknowledged below that the interview panel made no de- rogatory comments regarding her military service and that the interview chair—himself a veteran 3—described FEMA as having an inclusive, veteran-friendly culture. Id. at 14. The Board also credited testimony of all three interviewers that they held favorable views of veterans in the workplace and that the interview process was identical for each of the six candidates. Id. Each interviewer also testified that the candidate selected for the Executive Assistant position per- formed better than Ms. Trimble in the interview, providing detailed answers tied to specific prior experience, whereas Ms. Trimble’s answers were generally vague and abstract. Id. at 14–15. The Board found this testimony credibly demonstrated that Ms. Trimble was not recommended to the selecting official because of her weaker performance in the interview, not because of her military service. Id. Fi- nally, the Board credited the selecting official’s testimony that he selected the alternative candidate, rather than Ms. Trimble, without performing additional interviews because he trusted the panel’s (non-discriminatory) recommenda- tion. Id. at 15.
3 The interview chair’s status as a veteran is “[a]lso relevant to showing a lack of discrimination” against Ms. Trimble because of her military service. Trimble, 2023 WL 4287197, at *2. Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 09/12/2023
TRIMBLE v. DHS 5
In the face of this evidence, Ms. Trimble principally re- lies on the fact that she was not selected for the position, while a non-veteran was, to establish discriminatory in- tent. See Appellant’s Informal Op. Br.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
AISHA TRIMBLE, Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent ______________________
2023-1278 ______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DA-4324-22-0332-I-1. ______________________
Decided: September 12, 2023 ______________________
AISHA TRIMBLE, Dallas, TX, pro se.
RAFIQUE OMAR ANDERSON, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. ______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2023
PER CURIAM. Aisha Trimble appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying her request for corrective action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). For the fol- lowing reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Ms. Trimble is an honorably discharged veteran who served on active duty in the United States Army from Au- gust 1996 to June 2000. Appx. 11. 1 In January of 2022, Ms. Trimble applied for the position of Executive Assistant in the Region 6 team of the Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency (FEMA) in Denton, Texas. Id. Ms. Trimble was initially selected as one of the best qualified candidates and was invited to interview for the position, along with five other candidates. Id. Those interviews were con- ducted by a three-person panel including the FEMA Region 6 Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, who chaired the panel, and two other Region 6 officials. Id. Based on its interviews, the panel scored and recommended candidates for hiring to the Region 6 Regional Administrator, who acted as the selecting official. Id. at 11–12. Ms. Trimble was ultimately not selected for the Execu- tive Assistant position, which was instead offered to an- other, non-veteran interviewee. Id. at 12. Ms. Trimble appealed that decision to the Board, arguing her non-selec- tion violated USERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., which pro- hibits, inter alia, discrimination in hiring decisions based on an applicant’s prior military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a). The Board denied Ms. Trimble’s request for cor- rective action under USERRA. See Trimble v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. DA-4324-22-0332-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 7,
1 Citations to “Appx.” refer to the appendix attached to the Respondent’s Informal Brief. Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 09/12/2023
TRIMBLE v. DHS 3
2022) (reproduced at Appx. 10–17). In particular, the Board found Ms. Trimble failed to demonstrate by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that her status as a veteran was a substantial or motivating factor for her non-selection, Appx. 13–17, a required element of a USERRA claim. Ms. Trimble timely appealed to this Court. 2 We have jurisdic- tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). DISCUSSION We must uphold the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without proce- dures required by law, rule, or regulation having been fol- lowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). To prove a USERRA violation, the claim- ant “bears the initial burden of showing by a preponder- ance of the evidence that his military service was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employ- ment action.” Erickson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 571 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Whether a veteran’s military service was a substantial or motivating factor in her non-selection is a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. See Sheehan v. Dep’t of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1013–14 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
2 This is not the first appeal in which Ms. Trimble has alleged a USERRA violation because of her non-selec- tion for the position of Executive Assistant within a gov- ernment agency. In Trimble v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 2023-1307, 2023 WL 4287197 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2023) (non-precedential), which involved substantially similar al- legations, we upheld the Board’s finding that Ms. Trimble failed to prove her non-selection for an Executive Assistant position within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was the result of military service-based discrimination. Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 09/12/2023
conclusion.” McLaughlin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 353 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Matsuhita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Ms. Trimble failed to carry her initial burden to show her military service was a substantial or motivating factor in her non-selection. The Board reviewed the testimony of Ms. Trimble and each of the interviewing officials and found no evidence of any animus toward Ms. Trimble be- cause of her status as a veteran. Appx. 14–16. Ms. Trimble acknowledged below that the interview panel made no de- rogatory comments regarding her military service and that the interview chair—himself a veteran 3—described FEMA as having an inclusive, veteran-friendly culture. Id. at 14. The Board also credited testimony of all three interviewers that they held favorable views of veterans in the workplace and that the interview process was identical for each of the six candidates. Id. Each interviewer also testified that the candidate selected for the Executive Assistant position per- formed better than Ms. Trimble in the interview, providing detailed answers tied to specific prior experience, whereas Ms. Trimble’s answers were generally vague and abstract. Id. at 14–15. The Board found this testimony credibly demonstrated that Ms. Trimble was not recommended to the selecting official because of her weaker performance in the interview, not because of her military service. Id. Fi- nally, the Board credited the selecting official’s testimony that he selected the alternative candidate, rather than Ms. Trimble, without performing additional interviews because he trusted the panel’s (non-discriminatory) recommenda- tion. Id. at 15.
3 The interview chair’s status as a veteran is “[a]lso relevant to showing a lack of discrimination” against Ms. Trimble because of her military service. Trimble, 2023 WL 4287197, at *2. Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 09/12/2023
TRIMBLE v. DHS 5
In the face of this evidence, Ms. Trimble principally re- lies on the fact that she was not selected for the position, while a non-veteran was, to establish discriminatory in- tent. See Appellant’s Informal Op. Br. at 2 (“[The selecting official] denied initial employment to me, and this fact clearly proves his willingness to disobey veterans’ prefer- ence laws before appointing a non-veteran . . . .”); Appx. 14 (noting Ms. Trimble’s argument to the Board that FEMA’s “refusal to consider [her] non-selection . . . is indicative of animus”). But Ms. Trimble’s non-selection alone is insuffi- cient to carry her burden to show a USERRA violation. Sheehan, 240 F.3d at 1015 (“[C]laimants must show evi- dence of discrimination other than the fact of non-selection and membership in the protected class.”). To carry her bur- den, Ms. Trimble was required to put forward evidence showing her non-selection was motivated by service-based discrimination. The Board’s finding that Ms. Trimble did not succeed in that task is supported by substantial evi- dence. Ms. Trimble’s allegation that the selecting official vio- lated USERRA by allegedly ignoring veterans’ preference laws, including by conducting and crediting candidate in- terviews, is also misplaced. See Appellant’s Informal Op. Br. at 2; Appellant’s Informal Reply Br. at 2. While USERRA prohibits discrimination against veterans on the basis of their military service, it does not encompass claims based on the improper denial of the veterans’ preference except insofar as the denial is evidence of discriminatory intent. 4 See Jones v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 834
4 Claims regarding the improper denial of the veter- ans’ preference are properly raised under the Veterans Em- ployment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). Ms. Trimble has brought a separate action raising VEOA claims based on her non-selection by FEMA, which is the subject of a separate case. Trimble v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., Case: 23-1278 Document: 32 Page: 6 Filed: 09/12/2023
F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Ms. Trimble does not ex- plain how the alleged failure to apply the veterans’ prefer- ence demonstrates discriminatory intent, beyond resulting in her non-selection, which is insufficient by itself to sup- port a USERRA claim. Further, it is undisputed the Exec- utive Assistant position was announced through FEMA’s merit promotion process, see Appx. 11, in which a veteran “is not entitled to veterans’ preference,” Joseph v. F.T.C., 505 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). FEMA’s alleged failure to apply the veterans’ preference in circumstances where it is inapplicable does not support an inference of bias. CONCLUSION We have considered Ms. Trimble’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given, we hold substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Ms. Trimble failed to prove discriminatory intent was a substantial or motivating factor in her non-selection and therefore affirm the Board’s denial of corrective action un- der USERRA. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.
No. 2023-1279 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2023). We addressed substantially similar VEOA claims based on Ms. Trimble’s non-selection by the VA in Trimble v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 2023-1306, 2023 WL 4287195 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2023) (non-precedential).