The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Thursday that the Army lacked substantial evidence to support workplace disruption charges against a civilian employee, reversing a demotion imposed by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
In *Swearengen v. Department of the Army*, Marcus C. Swearengen successfully challenged his disciplinary action stemming from incidents at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where he worked as an Electronics Mechanic Leader for the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command.
The case originated when the Army issued Swearengen a notice of proposed removal on April 27, 2020, based on two charges: inappropriate remarks and creating a disruption in the workplace. Swearengen held a leadership position with the Aviation Center Logistic Command Missile and Fire Division, responsible for relaying and enforcing supervisory instructions to subordinate employees.
The Merit Systems Protection Board initially provided mixed relief for Swearengen. The Board reversed the Army's first charge regarding inappropriate remarks but sustained the second charge of workplace disruption. Rather than upholding the complete removal, the Board modified the penalty to a demotion, allowing Swearengen to retain employment with reduced responsibilities.
Dissatisfied with the partial adverse ruling, Swearengen petitioned the Federal Circuit for review of the Board's decision. His attorney, Daniel J. Gamino of Daniel J. Gamino & Associates in Oklahoma City, argued the case before the three-judge panel.
The Department of Justice represented the Army through its Commercial Litigation Branch, with Laura Offenbacher Aradi arguing for the government. The legal team also included Albert S. Iarossi, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brett Shumate.
Circuit Judge Timothy B. Dyk authored the court's opinion, joined by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and Circuit Judge Raymond T. Taranto. The panel examined whether substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Swearengen created workplace disruption.
Federal employment law requires agencies to prove disciplinary charges by substantial evidence, meaning more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of evidence. This standard protects federal employees from arbitrary personnel actions while allowing agencies to maintain workplace order and efficiency.
The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction over Merit Systems Protection Board appeals stems from its specialized role in federal personnel matters. The court regularly reviews cases involving federal employee rights, ensuring consistent application of civil service protections across government agencies.
Swearengen's position as an Electronics Mechanic Leader placed him in a critical role within the Army's aviation and missile operations. His responsibilities included technical maintenance oversight and personnel supervision, making workplace conduct particularly important for mission effectiveness.
The case reflects ongoing tensions in federal workplace management, where supervisors must balance employee rights with operational needs. Military installations face unique challenges in maintaining both civilian employee protections and military readiness requirements.
The court's reversal represents a victory for federal employee due process rights. By requiring substantial evidence for disciplinary actions, the ruling reinforces protections against arbitrary punishment while maintaining agencies' ability to address genuine misconduct.
The Federal Circuit's decision carries precedential weight for similar cases involving federal civilian employees at military installations. However, the court noted this disposition as nonprecedential, limiting its binding effect on future cases.
For the Army, the ruling necessitates stronger documentation of workplace disruption incidents before pursuing disciplinary action. Agencies must ensure their evidence meets federal standards to avoid successful appeals that waste resources and undermine personnel management.
Swearengen's successful appeal demonstrates the value of Merit Systems Protection Board procedures in protecting federal employee rights. The multi-level review process, from initial agency action through Board proceedings to Federal Circuit appeal, provides comprehensive due process protections.
The case also highlights the specialized nature of federal employment law, requiring expertise in both civil service regulations and military operational requirements. Legal practitioners must understand unique aspects of federal personnel management to effectively represent clients.
This ruling joins other Federal Circuit decisions emphasizing the substantial evidence standard in federal employment cases. Courts consistently require agencies to present clear, convincing proof of misconduct before imposing significant disciplinary penalties.
The reversal returns Swearengen to his original position, undoing both the proposed removal and subsequent demotion. This outcome protects his career progression and benefits while sending a message about proper evidence standards in federal personnel actions.
Moving forward, federal agencies must carefully document workplace incidents and gather substantial evidence before pursuing disciplinary action. The decision reinforces that employee protection standards apply equally across military and civilian federal workplaces, ensuring consistent due process rights throughout government service.