The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of Rodney Ray, a longtime employee and union leader at the U.S. Mint in Denver, Colorado. The nonprecedential decision, filed Jan. 13, 2026, rejected Ray's pro se challenge to his removal from federal employment.
Ray served as president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees at the Denver Mint facility. His termination followed incidents that occurred during his tenure as union president, including statements made during a labor-management meeting on Jan. 31, 2024.
The case originated from workplace tensions involving Ray's wife, who also worked at the Mint on the third shift. On Jan. 25, 2024, Mary Wurster, the Human Resources Officer for the Mint, issued a letter to Ray's wife requiring her to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination. Such examinations involve medical assessments of an employee's ability to perform job duties, and failure to meet physical requirements can result in removal from federal employment.
As union president, Ray regularly attended weekly labor-management meetings as part of his official duties. At the Jan. 31, 2024 meeting, which included several members of management and Wurster, Ray made statements near the end of the session that became central to his subsequent termination. The court opinion notes the exact phrasing of Ray's statements was disputed, though the content appears to have been significant enough to trigger disciplinary action.
Following his removal from the Mint, Ray pursued arbitration through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service under case number FMCS 240802-08698. Arbitrator Jeff J. Minckler ultimately ruled that Ray's termination did not violate the collective bargaining agreement between the Mint and the local union.
Unsatisfied with the arbitration outcome, Ray petitioned the Federal Circuit for review of the arbitrator's decision. Representing himself pro se, Ray argued that his removal violated the terms of the collective bargaining agreement that governed his employment relationship with the federal agency.
The Federal Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Reyna, issued a per curiam opinion affirming the arbitrator's decision. The court found no basis to overturn the arbitrator's conclusion that Ray's termination was proper under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
The case was handled by attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice's Commercial Litigation Branch, including Tate Nathan Walker, Elizabeth Marie Hosford, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brett Shumate, who represented the Mint throughout the proceedings.
The Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over certain federal employment disputes, particularly those involving arbitration decisions under collective bargaining agreements with federal agencies. The court's review of arbitration decisions is typically limited, with deference given to arbitrators' interpretations of labor agreements unless they exceed their authority or the decision violates public policy.
This case highlights the complex intersection of federal employment law, union representation, and workplace discipline within federal agencies. The U.S. Mint, as a bureau of the Treasury Department, employs thousands of workers across multiple facilities nationwide who are represented by various labor organizations.
The dispute also illustrates the challenges faced by federal employees who serve in dual roles as both workers and union representatives. Union officials like Ray often find themselves navigating competing loyalties between their employer obligations and their duty to represent fellow workers' interests.
Fitness-for-duty examinations, which figured prominently in the background of this case, are standard tools used by federal agencies to ensure employees can safely and effectively perform their assigned duties. These examinations can be triggered by various factors, including medical concerns, workplace incidents, or performance issues.
The Federal Circuit's affirmance of the arbitrator's decision means Ray has exhausted his primary avenues for challenging his termination. While the opinion is designated as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases, it provides insight into how courts review arbitration decisions in federal employment disputes.
For federal employees and unions, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the specific terms and limitations of collective bargaining agreements. It also underscores the significant deference courts give to arbitrators' interpretations of labor contracts, making the arbitration process often the final word in employment disputes.
The timing of the case, with the Federal Circuit decision issued in early 2026, reflects the lengthy process that federal employment disputes can take as they move through arbitration and judicial review. Ray's case began with workplace incidents in early 2024 and concluded nearly two years later with the Federal Circuit's affirmance.