Case Explained: HARROW v. DEFENSE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision upholding a six-day furlough of Stuart Harrow, a civilian employee of the Department of Defense. The court addressed the case on remand from the Supreme Court, which had ruled that the 60-day filing deadline for appealing Board decisions under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is non-jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling; the Federal Circuit assumed Harrow was entitled to equitable tolling due to his failure to update his email address with the Board, thereby waiving the procedural bar to proceed on the merits. On the substantive issue, the court applied the standard of review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), examining whether the agency’s action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court held that the Department of Defense satisfied the statutory requirement in 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) to take adverse actions only “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” Relying on its prior precedent in *Einboden v. Dep’t of the Navy*, the court determined that this standard is met when an agency demonstrates that a furlough was a “reasonable management solution” to financial restrictions, such as sequestration, and that the selection of employees for furlough was applied in a “fair and even manner.” The court rejected Harrow’s argument that the decision failed to promote efficiency because it would cost money or time, clarifying that agencies have broad discretion to prioritize funding for war-fighting missions during budget shortfalls and are not required to justify furloughs on an individual basis absent evidence of disparate treatment. The practical consequence is that the Board’s final decision affirming the furlough remains in effect, and Harrow’s appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.