Sheehan v. Department of the Navy
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1907, 240 F.3d 1009, 166 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2526 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), an employee claiming discrimination must first show by a preponderance of the evidence that their military service was a substantial or motivating factor in an adverse employment action. If this burden is met, the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same action for a legitimate reason, regardless of the employee's military status.
Facts:
- Patrick J. Sheehan and Ronald J. Fahrenbacher are retired officers from the Navy Judge Advocate General Corps with distinguished service records.
- In 1996, both Sheehan and Fahrenbacher applied for a newly-created civilian position as Attorney Advisor and Counsel to the Commander of the Naval Training Center at Great Lakes, Illinois.
- The Department of the Navy did not select either Sheehan or Fahrenbacher for the position.
- Two of the five individuals who were selected as finalists for the position had prior military service, though Sheehan and Fahrenbacher were not among this group of finalists.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick J. Sheehan and Ronald J. Fahrenbacher filed separate appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a federal administrative tribunal, alleging the Department of the Navy discriminated against them based on their prior military service.
- An MSPB administrative judge denied Mr. Fahrenbacher's appeal.
- A different MSPB administrative judge granted Mr. Sheehan's appeal.
- Mr. Fahrenbacher (appellant) petitioned the full MSPB for review of the denial in his case.
- The Department of the Navy (appellee at this stage) petitioned the full MSPB for review of the decision granting Mr. Sheehan's appeal.
- The full MSPB consolidated the two petitions and issued a single decision, ruling that neither appellant was entitled to relief.
- Sheehan and Fahrenbacher (appellants) appealed the final decision of the MSPB to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), must an employee first prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their military service was a substantial or motivating factor in an adverse employment action before the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to prove it would have taken the same action for a legitimate reason?
Opinions:
Majority - Pauline Newman
Yes. To establish a discrimination claim under USERRA, an employee carries the initial burden of proving that their military service was a 'substantial or motivating factor' in the adverse employment action. The court explicitly adopts the two-part, burden-shifting framework established in National Labor Relations Board v. Transportation Management Corp. for USERRA claims. This framework is distinct from the McDonnell Douglas standard used in Title VII cases because under USERRA, the burden of persuasion—not just production—shifts to the employer once the employee makes their initial showing. Here, the appellants failed to meet their initial burden, as they presented no evidence of discrimination other than their veteran status and non-selection. The fact that other veterans were finalists for the position further undermined their claim that their military service was a motivating factor in the agency's decision.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the definitive evidentiary framework for USERRA discrimination claims within the Federal Circuit. By adopting the Transportation Management test over the more common McDonnell Douglas framework, the court clarified that USERRA provides a distinct, statutorily-defined process where the ultimate burden of persuasion can shift to the employer. This precedent sets a clear standard for future cases, requiring employees to first produce concrete evidence that their military status was a motivating factor before an employer is required to prove its legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse action. It solidifies the 'motivating factor' standard, which is more protective than the old 'sole motivation' test but requires more than a mere allegation of discrimination.
