Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01387/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01387-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Agriculture
Respondent
Wayne C. Hawkes
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WAYNE C. HAWKES,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1387

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. SF-0752-13-0038-I-2, SF-0752-15-0049-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: August 10, 2016

______________________ 

 WAYNE C. HAWKES, Davis, CA, pro se.

 JOSEPH ALAN PIXLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BRIAN MIZOGUCHI, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., BENJAMIN 

C. MIZER. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1387 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/10/2016
2 HAWKES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

PER CURIAM. 

Wayne Hawkes appeals pro se a final decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board upholding his suspension 

and removal from the Department of Agriculture. The 

Board determined that the agency met its burden with 

respect to its causes for adverse action and that Mr. 

Hawkes failed to establish any affirmative defense. The 

Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, in 

accordance with law, and neither arbitrary, capricious, 

nor an abuse of discretion. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Hawkes worked as a supervisory research chemist at the USDA for over 30 years. He maintained a 

reputation for taking safety concerns seriously, in part 

due to whistleblowing disclosures to the Occupational 

Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) in 1995 and

1997. In 2012, a laboratory malfunction led to a series of 

confrontations between Mr. Hawkes and his coworkers. 

Those confrontations resulted in a supervisor directing 

Mr. Hawkes to take an anger management course, which 

he failed to timely complete. Mr. Hawkes later vented his 

frustration to a colleague, who reported Mr. Hawkes’

statements as threats against a supervisor. This culminated in Mr. Hawkes’ receiving 30 days suspension. A 

year later, Mr. Hawkes was removed from employment 

due to disruptive behavior in a meeting of senior scientists. 

Mr. Hawkes filed two appeals before the Board, one 

challenging the suspension and another challenging the 

removal. An administrative judge joined the two appeals 

and sustained both agency actions. In its initial decision, 

the Board found that the agency met its burden with 

respect to charges of causing a disruption in the workplace and failure to follow instructions, which led to the 

suspension and with respect to conduct unbecoming a 

federal employee, which led to the removal. On review, 

Case: 16-1387 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/10/2016
HAWKES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 3

the full Board affirmed the initial decision. Mr. Hawkes

appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our review of Board decisions is limited. Kahn v. 

Dep’t of Justice, 618 F.3d 1306, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We 

may only reverse a Board decision if we find it to be 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 

not in accordance with law; obtained without procedures 

required by law; or unsupported by substantial evidence. 

Id. Substantial evidence exists where a reasonable mind 

could accept that evidence as adequate support for a 

conclusion. See Brewer v. U.S. Postal Serv., 647 F.2d 

1093, 1096 (Ct. Cl. 1981). The Board’s credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal. King v. 

Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 133 F.3d 1450, 1453 

(Fed. Cir. 1998). 

DISCUSSION

Mr. Hawkes does not deny that he failed to complete 

the anger management course on time as instructed, 

made the allegedly threatening statements, and disrupted 

the meeting of senior scientists. Instead, Mr. Hawkes has 

consistently maintained that his statements were jokes 

and not intended to be threatening. However, intent is 

not an element because, as the Board explained, the 

agency suspended him for disrupting the workplace, not 

making threats. J.A. 37.

Mr. Hawkes primary contention on appeal is that the 

agency’s stated grounds for suspension and removal are 

guise for improper retaliation against his protected whistleblowing activities. He also contends that the agency 

improperly relied on “threats, emotional disability, 

breaching [of] a confidentiality agreement, [and] Petitioner’s lawsuit” against a coworker.” Petitioner’s Br. 4. The 

Board explained that it was persuaded by credible eviCase: 16-1387 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/10/2016
4 HAWKES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

dence from agency officials that the decision to suspend 

and remove Mr. Hawkes was not motivated by any of 

those grounds. See, e.g., J.A. 42, 44−46. Further, Mr. 

Hawkes’ packaging these arguments as due process 

violations is to no avail, because Mr. Hawkes had no right 

to notice of grounds that were not relied on by the agency. 

The Board also correctly explained that it did not 

have jurisdiction in this appeal to consider whether other 

agency actions—such as moving Mr. Hawkes’ office and 

limiting his contact with colleagues—were improperly 

motivated by his protected whistleblower activities, 

because Mr. Hawkes did not file an appeal challenging

those agency actions, only his suspension and removal. 

J.A. 43. 

For the protected whistle blowing activities that Mr. 

Hawkes was able to establish as being relevant to the 

agency’s decision to suspend and remove him, the Board 

correctly applied the three-part test from our decision in 

Carr v. Social Security Administration, 185 F.3d 1318, 

1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Despite the evidence Mr. Hawkes

submitted to the contrary, the Board explained that it 

was persuaded by clear and convincing evidence from 

agency officials, whom the Board found credible, that the 

agency would have suspended and removed Mr. Hawkes 

regardless of his protected activities. The Board’s factual 

determinations are supported by substantial evidence, 

and we will not disturb them. 

Mr. Hawkes asserts that the administrative judge 

erred in consolidating his appeals because that resulted in 

considering his suspension as prior discipline relevant to 

his removal even though his suspension was still pending 

appeal. He also asserts that the administrative judge 

erred in denying certain of his proffered witnesses. We do 

not find these procedural objections persuasive. There 

was no error in consolidating the appeals because the 

Board is allowed to consider prior disciplinary action even 

Case: 16-1387 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/10/2016
HAWKES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 5

when that prior discipline is pending appeal. Suggs v. 

Dep’t. of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 671, 675 ¶ 11 

(2010), aff’d, 415 F. App’x 240 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Mr. 

Hawkes waived his objection to the denial of witnesses by 

failing to timely object to the administrative judge’s 

decision after the pre-conference ruling. J.A. 49−50.

We affirm the Board’s decision. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1387 Document: 19-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/10/2016