Background
Stuart Harrow, a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, was subject to a six-day furlough in 2013 due to a sequestration of funds. He requested an exemption citing financial hardship, which was denied. After appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board, he missed the sixty-day deadline to petition the Federal Circuit for review. The Supreme Court later held that the filing deadline is non-jurisdictional and remanded the case, allowing the Federal Circuit to assume equitable tolling applied.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board’s decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard and the substantial evidence test. It found that the Department of Defense demonstrated the furlough was a reasonable management solution to the financial restrictions confronting it during the second half of Fiscal Year 2013. The court relied on its prior decision in Einboden v. Department of the Navy, noting that agencies have broad discretion to prioritize funding during budget shortfalls. The court rejected the argument that the agency must prove the furlough was the most efficient option for every individual employee, stating it would be impracticable to weigh the relative efficiency of each employee’s contribution in a mass furlough scenario.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that federal agencies may implement furloughs as a reasonable management solution to fiscal constraints without needing to justify the decision on an individualized efficiency basis for each employee, provided the selection process is fair and even.