Drevaleva v. United States of America

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva began working as a probationary medical instrument technician at the New Mexico Veterans Affairs Medical Center in April 2017. She left for Russia in May 2017 and did not return for about three months. She later received a termination notice alleging that she had taken leave without permission.

Drevaleva allegedly received an offer in May 2018 to work in the same position at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The Minneapolis facility rescinded the offer after learning about her New Mexico termination. A human-resources official cited a federal regulation concerning suitability for federal employment.

Drevaleva appealed her New Mexico termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, but the Board concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because she had been a probationary employee in excepted service for less than two years. In this case, she sought review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the Minneapolis facility’s decision that she was unsuitable for hire. She proceeded without a lawyer.

Jurisdictional analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 displaced district-court review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court explained that the Civil Service Reform Act created the Merit Systems Protection Board and assigned it authority over certain suitability actions involving an employee or an applicant for employment. The statute provides judicial review of final Board decisions through the federal courts of appeals, but it does not provide for district-court review of suitability decisions. The Ninth Circuit has held that the Civil Service Reform Act replaces any district-court jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act in this area.

The court determined that the Minneapolis decision was a suitability determination involving an applicant for employment. It therefore concluded that the Civil Service Reform Act assigned the dispute to the Merit Systems Protection Board and, in turn, the appropriate federal court of appeals, leaving the district court without subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court distinguished the Board’s earlier refusal to review the New Mexico termination. That earlier ruling rested on Drevaleva’s status as a probationary worker who had not served continuously for the required two years. The court said the Minneapolis decision was different because it concerned a suitability determination involving an applicant for employment.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the complaint without further leave to amend and stated that Drevaleva should not further litigate the claim in district court. The order said she could appeal the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.