Katherine Archuleta, Director, Office of Personnel Management v. Mary A. Miller

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KATHERINE ARCHULETA, DIRECTOR, OFFICE
OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Petitioner,
v.
MARY A. MILLER,
Respondent,
AND
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent.
______________________
2014-119
______________________
Petition for Review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF-0752-11-0766-R-2.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and REYNA Circuit Judges.
L OURIE, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Case: 14-119 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 04/23/2014

-- 1 of 3 --

ARCHULETA v. MARY MILLER 2
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
(“OPM”) petitions for review of a final order of the Merit
Systems Protection Board pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(d).
The Board found that the agency “failed to provide a
‘rational basis’ for requiring the appellant to accept the
geographic reassignment” and that the agency instead
invoked its discretion to reassign her as a “veil” to effect
her separation. The Board thus concluded her removal
did not promote the efficiency of the service.
OPM may seek review of a Board decision when it
determines “that the Board erred in interpreting a civil
service law, rule or regulation” and that the Board’s
decision will have a substantial impact on the administra-
tion of the civil service. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(d). The
"granting of the petition for judicial review shall be at the
discretion of the Court of Appeals." Id. OPM asserts that
when the Board reviewed the agency’s removal of Miller
for failure to accept a geographic reassignment it assessed
the merits of the agency’s underlying reassignment order,
and by doing so “the [B]oard improperly substituted its
judgment on managerial decisions Congress has left to
agencies.”
OPM further asserts that “if the [B]oard is permitted
to substitute its judgments for reassignments throughout
the entire Federal Government, the tool of reassignment
will be rendered unworkable, onerous, and burdensome.”
We conclude that review should be granted.
Upon consideration thereof,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
OPM’s petition is granted.
\
Case: 14-119 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 04/23/2014

-- 2 of 3 --

ARCHULETA v. MARY MILLER 3
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s25
Case: 14-119 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 04/23/2014

-- 3 of 3 --