Ikia Butler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IKIA BUTLER,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2025-1204
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0752-23-0453-I-1.
______________________
Decided: October 20, 2025
______________________
IKIA BUTLER, Charlotte, NC, pro se.
D EANNA SCHABACKER , Office of the General Counsel,
United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON JANE
BOYLE, K ATHERINE M ICHELLE S MITH .
SEAN K ELLY G RIFFIN , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Case: 25-1204 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

BUTLER v. MSPB 2
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by ELIZABETH
M ARIE H OSFORD , PATRICIA M. M CCARTHY, Y AAKOV R OTH .
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, D YK and CUNNINGHAM,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Ikia Butler petitions for review of a decision from the
Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing her ap-
peal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
After working for the United States Postal Service
(USPS) as a full-time City Carrier for over twelve years in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Ms. Butler bid for and re-
ceived a reassignment to Charlotte, North Carolina. Appx.
1–2.1 A few months after starting in Charlotte, she re-
signed for personal reasons. Appx. 1. Approximately one
year after resigning, she applied for and was hired as an
entry-level USPS City Carrier Assistant (CCA) in Char-
lotte. Appx. 2; Appx. 26. She completed new-employee ori-
entation and several months of training before resigning
again. Appx. 2. While employed as a CCA, she alleges she
sought reinstatement to her prior full-time City Carrier po-
sition, which was denied. Appx. 2; Appx. 31. Ms. Butler
then appealed to the Board, alleging that USPS failed to
credit her prior seniority. Appx. 1. The Board dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Appx. 1–5. Ms. Butler petitions for
review. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to Re-
spondent’s informal brief.
Case: 25-1204 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

BUTLER v. MSPB 3
D ISCUSSION
The scope of our review in an appeal from a decision of
the Board is limited. Generally, we must affirm the deci-
sion unless we find it to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
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). Whether the
Board has jurisdiction is a question of law we review de
novo. Bryant v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 878 F.3d 1320, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2017). We review the Board’s fact findings un-
derlying its jurisdictional analysis for substantial evidence.
Id.
The Board determined Ms. Butler failed to demon-
strate she was subject to an appealable adverse action or
establish a basis for a claim based on denial of restoration
to work following a compensable workplace injury. Appx.
3–4. As an independent basis for dismissal, the Board
found Ms. Butler did not allege she fell within one of the
limited categories of USPS employees with Board appeal
rights. Appx. 4–5. Ms. Butler does not challenge any of
these determinations on appeal.
Instead, Ms. Butler argues USPS’ refusal to reinstate
her to her prior seniority was a “suitability action” within
the Board’s jurisdiction. Petitioner’s Informal Br. 8–10
(citing 5 C.F.R. §§ 731.203, 1201.3(a)(9)). Because
Ms. Butler did not raise this argument before the Board, it
is waived. Bosley v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 162 F.3d 665, 668
(Fed. Cir. 1998). Even if not waived, Ms. Butler cannot cast
USPS’ refusal to reinstate her to her previous position as a
suitability action to fall within the Board’s jurisdiction.
The Board has jurisdiction over suitability actions where
an agency takes action against a competitive service or ca-
reer Senior Executive Service employee resulting from cer-
tain negative suitability determinations including
cancellation of eligibility, removal, cancellation of rein-
statement eligibility, or debarment. 5 C.F.R. §§ 731.101,
Case: 25-1204 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 10/20/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

BUTLER v. MSPB 4
.203; Ricci v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 953 F.3d 753, 757 (Fed.
Cir. 2020). As a postal service employee, Ms. Butler is in
the excepted service, not the competitive service or Senior
Executive Service. See Mouton-Miller v. Merit Sys. Prot.
Bd., 985 F.3d 864, 867 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“All positions in the
Postal Service fall within the excepted service.”); 5 U.S.C.
§ 2103 (“[T]he ‘excepted service’ consists of those civil ser-
vice positions which are not in the competitive service or
the Senior Executive Service.”). As such, Ms. Butler cannot
be subject to a suitability action under the Board’s jurisdic-
tion. See 5 C.F.R. § 731.101(a).
Ms. Butler argues that USPS’ refusal to credit her
prior seniority after she accepted the CCA position was a
cancellation of her reinstatement eligibility, but no evi-
dence shows she was eligible for reinstatement to her pre-
vious position or that such eligibility was cancelled.
Petitioner’s Informal Br. 8–10. Ms. Butler also argues the
USPS Employment and Placement Handbook (EL-312)
gave her a right to reinstatement in her previous position.
Petitioner’s Informal Br. 9 (citing EL-312, §§ 233.332(a),
.333, .334(b)(1)(a)). The portions of EL-312 Ms. Butler re-
lies on, however, do not require USPS to reinstate her to
her previous seniority or give the Board jurisdiction to re-
view USPS’ decision. Instead, EL-312 states “[t]he Postal
Service may fill a career position by reinstatement,” but it
does not require USPS to reinstate her or grant the Board
jurisdiction to review USPS’ decision not to reinstate
Ms. Butler to her prior seniority. See EL-312, § 233.331
(emphasis added).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Butler’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1204 Document: 48 Page: 4 Filed: 10/20/2025

-- 4 of 4 --