United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TONIA TIPPINS, DERRIK MAGNUSON, GEORGE HOLLOWAY, JENNIFER REHBERG, GLENDA SMITHLEETH, M. ALLEN BUMGARDNER, FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant ______________________

2022-1462 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:18-cv-00923-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp. ______________________

Decided: March 1, 2024 ______________________

NATHAN S. MAMMEN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washing- ton, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by GRACE BRIER.

DOUGLAS GLENN EDELSCHICK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; JARED HOOD, JUSTIN Case: 22-1462 Document: 57 Page: 2 Filed: 03/01/2024

2 TIPPINS v. US

RAND JOLLEY, Office of Claims and Litigation, United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC. ______________________

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Between 2010 and 2014, the United States Coast Guard convened Active Duty Enlisted Career Retention Screening Panels (CRSPs) to select enlisted service mem- bers for involuntary retirement. This process did not follow the procedures and standards of then-applicable 14 U.S.C. § 357(a)–(h), which (before those provisions were repealed in 2016) addressed involuntary retirement of certain Coast Guard service members with specified seniority. Several former Coast Guard service members, after being involun- tarily retired through the CRSP process, brought this ac- tion on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, as- serting that their retirements were contrary to law because the Coast Guard proceeded without following § 357(a)–(h). The government responded by invoking § 357(j), which stated that § 357(a)–(h) did not apply to a “reduction in force.” The applicability of that exception to the CRSPs is the issue on appeal. The Claims Court held, on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, that the involuntary retirements were unlawful because the CRSPs were not part of a “re- duction in force.” Tippins v. United States, 154 Fed. Cl. 373, 375, 378–83 (2021) (Tippins I). On the government’s motion for reconsideration, the Claims Court reiterated its conclusion and entered partial final judgment for the six named plaintiffs. Tippins v. United States, 157 Fed. Cl. 284, 292 (2021) (Tippins II). The government appeals. We affirm. Case: 22-1462 Document: 57 Page: 3 Filed: 03/01/2024

TIPPINS v. US 3

I Plaintiffs Tonia Tippins, Derrik Magnuson, George Holloway, Jennifer Rehberg, Glenda Smithleeth, and M. Allen Bumgardner are Coast Guard veterans who each honorably served twenty years or more and reached senior enlisted ranks. Between 2012 and 2014, the Coast Guard selected plaintiffs for involuntary retirement through CRSPs created as part of a program for clearing spots to make room for the promotion of less senior service mem- bers. The CRSPs were first authorized in 2010, when the Coast Guard became concerned about high retention among retirement-eligible enlisted personnel and the re- sulting lack of advancement opportunities for high-per- forming juni