Lance McDermott v. United States Postal Service

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LANCE MCDERMOTT,
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1621
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF-0752-13-0633-C-1.
______________________
Decided: February 6, 2026
______________________
LANCE MCDERMOTT, Seattle, WA, pro se.
YARIV S. PIERCE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by REGINALD
THOMAS BLADES, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 25-1621 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

MCDERMOTT v. USPS 2
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CHEN, Circuit Judge, and
KLEEH, Chief District Judge.1
PER CURIAM.
Lance McDermott—entitled to back pay for certain an-
nual leave and applicable interest—appeals a decision by
the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing his
petition for enforcement and petition for review because
the Board found that the United States Postal Service
(USPS) complied with its obligations to pay Mr. McDer-
mott. See McDermott v. United States Postal Serv., No. SF-
0752-13-0633-C-1, 2025 WL 832178, at *1, *4 (M.S.P.B.
Mar. 14, 2025) (Final Order) (S.A. 1–7).2 For the following
reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. McDermott is a former USPS employee who served
as a maintenance mechanic. See id. at *1. On May 30,
2013, the USPS placed him on enforced leave because it
was unable to determine whether he could safely work due
to his color blindness. See McDermott v. United States
Postal Serv., No. SF-0752-13-0633-C-1, 2023 WL 3440849,
at 3 (M.S.P.B. May 9, 2023) (Compliance Initial Decision)
(S.A. 25–32).3 On April 28, 2015, the Board sustained the
USPS’s decision placing Mr. McDermott on enforced leave
and ordered the USPS to “restore [his] annual leave for the
1 Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge,
United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia, sitting by designation.
2 “S.A.” refers to the respondent’s supplemental ap-
pendix.
3 Because the online version of the Compliance Ini-
tial Decision lacks pagination, we use the pagination em-
ployed in the Board’s original document. For example,
“Compliance Initial Decision, 2023 WL 3440849, at 1” cor-
responds to S.A. 25.
Case: 25-1621 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

MCDERMOTT v. USPS 3
period May 30, 2013 – June 7, 2013, and to pay
[him] . . . the appropriate amount of back pay, if any, with
interest.” Id. at 1, 4. Mr. McDermott subsequently filed a
petition for enforcement seeking to enforce the April 28,
2015 order. In response, the Board found that the USPS
“has failed to comply with the Board’s order” and ordered
the USPS to “provide evidence” for compliance. Id. at 7.
On June 7, 2023, the USPS informed the Board that it
had taken the actions identified in the Compliance Initial
Decision. See Final Order, 2025 WL 832178, at *2; see
McDermott v. United States Postal Serv., No. SF-0752-13-
0633-C-1, 2024 WL 1828178, at *4 (M.S.P.B. April 25,
2024). The USPS included, as a statement of compliance,
copies of letters sent to Mr. McDermott informing him that
it issued him checks for the back pay and interest along
with photocopies of the checks and a copy of a back pay
computation summary report. See id. In its April 25, 2024
Order, the Board found that the USPS did not provide suf-
ficient documents to demonstrate whether the back pay
and interest award was correct and whether the USPS is
therefore compliant with the Compliance Initial Decision.
See id. The Board ordered the USPS to submit satisfactory
evidence of compliance including the demonstration that it
properly calculated the back pay according to the appropri-
ate amount of restored annual leave and related interest.
See id. at *5.
In response to the April 25, 2024 Order, the USPS sub-
mitted its evidence of compliance, including “a declaration
explaining the amount of restored annual leave and the
rate for such leave, calculations explaining the amount of
interest, and time and attendance records.” Final Order,
2025 WL 832178, at *4. The USPS paid Mr. McDermott
$1,040.94 based on the restoration of 45.5 hours of annual
leave. See S.A. 173, 176. The USPS also paid him $225.75
for interest calculated using the first date during the first
pay period when Mr. McDermott separated from the Postal
Service, December 7, 2019. See S.A. 179. Mr. McDermott
Case: 25-1621 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

MCDERMOTT v. USPS 4
challenged the USPS’s method of calculating the back pay
because “the declarant is not the back pay coordinator re-
sponsible for personally completing the necessary back pay
forms.” Final Order, 2025 WL 832178, at *4. The Board
determined the USPS to be in compliance, rejecting
Mr. McDermott’s arguments for not identifying “any spe-
cific errors in the amounts calculated by [USPS].” Id. Ac-
cordingly, the Board dismissed Mr. McDermott’s petition
for enforcement and petition for review.
Mr. McDermott now seeks review of the Board’s Final
Order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the Board’s decision to determine if it is
“(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-
wise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pro-
cedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5
U.S.C. § 7703(c). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’” Berlin v. Dep’t of Labor, 772 F.3d
890, 894 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. McDermott raises numerous argu-
ments for issues outside the scope of the Final Order.4 See,
e.g., Pet’r’s Informal Br. 7 (challenging an unrelated Board
order), 10 (arguing that the USPS and the Board lack
power to place him on an enforced leave), 19 (disputing
4 Mr. McDermott listed the Board’s April 28, 2015
decision corresponding to MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-
0633-I-1. See Pet’r’s Informal Br. 1. That case is not before
us, because the April 28, 2015 initial decision is not the in-
itial decision that corresponds to the Final Order. Simi-
larly, issues regarding the enforced leave are not before us.
Case: 25-1621 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

MCDERMOTT v. USPS 5
whether his colorblindness is a disability), 28 (appealing
the USPS’s enforced leave action). Rather, the issue before
us is whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s de-
termination that the USPS complied with its obligations
under the Compliance Initial Decision.
On that issue, Mr. McDermott raises two arguments:
(1) the Compliance Initial Decision ordered the USPS to
pay him 64 hours of back pay and restore 64 hours of leave
for a total of 128 hours (instead of 45.5 hours); and (2) the
interest on back pay should run from May 30, 2013 (instead
of the first date of first pay period for which back pay is
payable, which is December 7, 2019). See Pet’r’s Informal
Br. 11–12.
Both arguments are unpersuasive. As to the former,
Mr. McDermott misreads the Compliance Initial Decision.
The Compliance Initial Decision ordered the USPS to “re-
store [his] annual leave for the period May 30, 2013 – June
7, 2013.” See Compliance Initial Decision, 2023 WL
3440849, at 4 (emphasis added). The USPS did just what
it was ordered. After noting that the period spans over two
pay periods, it determined that Mr. McDermott used 5.5
hours of annual leave during the first pay period and 40
hours of annual leave during the second pay period through
June 7, 2013. S.A. 151 (citing its payroll journals, S.A.
156–58), 153. It then sent Mr. McDermott a check for his
back pay in the amount of $1,040.94 corresponding to the
restored 45.5 hours of annual leave. S.A. 166, 173. In view
of the submitted evidence, the Board reasonably concluded
that the USPS “is in compliance with its outstanding com-
pliance obligations.” See Final Order, 2025 WL 832178, at
*4.
As to his second argument, Mr. McDermott again mis-
reads the Compliance Initial Decision. The Compliance In-
itial Decision did not state that the interest should run
from May 30, 2013; rather, it provided that the interest
should be calculated “in accordance with the Office of
Case: 25-1621 Document: 37 Page: 5 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

MCDERMOTT v. USPS 6
Personnel Management’s regulations.” See Compliance In-
itial Decision, 2023 WL 3440849, at 4. Here, there is no
indication that the USPS deviated from the relevant regu-
lations. See 5 C.F.R. § 550.1203(a) (“An agency must make
a lump-sum payment for accumulated and accrued annual
leave when an employee,” among other things, “[s]eparates
or retires from the Federal service”) (emphasis added); see
5 C.F.R. § 550.806(a)(1) (“Interest begins to accrue on the
date or dates . . . on which the employee would have re-
ceived the pay . . . .”). For example, the USPS calculated
the interest to run from December 7, 2019—the first date
of the first pay period when Mr. McDermott retired. S.A.
3, 179. This is consistent with the Board’s finding that
“[h]is last day in a pay status with the agency was Decem-
ber 10, 2019. Thus, as of that date, he became entitled to
the value of his restored leave through the issuance of
back[]pay.” See Final Order, 2025 WL 832178, at *1. And
Mr. McDermott does not explain why the interest should
run from May 30, 2013. As the Board noted, his “general
charges of error do not rebut the agency’s detailed and spe-
cific evidence, because they do not make specific, noncon-
clusory, and supported assertions of continued
noncompliance.” See Final Order, 2025 WL 832178, at *4
(internal citation omitted). Accordingly, substantial evi-
dence supports the Board’s determination that the USPS
complied with its obligations under the Compliance Initial
Decision.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. McDermott’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons,
the Board properly dismissed Mr. McDermott’s petition for
enforcement and petition for review. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1621 Document: 37 Page: 6 Filed: 02/06/2026

-- 6 of 6 --