Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01533/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01533-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Commerce
Respondent
Anzor Mikaia
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ANZOR MIKAIA,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Respondent

______________________

2019-1533

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-1221-17-0794-W-2.

______________________

Decided: April 10, 2020

______________________

MICHAEL LEE VOGELSANG, JR., The Employment Law 

Group, PC, Washington, DC, for petitioner. 

 ALISON VICKS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for respondent. Also represented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, 

ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN,

JR. 

 ______________________

Before CHEN, SCHALL, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 19-1533 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 04/10/2020
2 MIKAIA v. COMMERCE

PER CURIAM.

Dr. Anzor Mikaia petitions for review of a decision by 

the Merit Systems Protection Board denying corrective action for his claim of whistleblower retaliation. Because the 

Board properly identified the protected activities and because substantial evidence supports its factual findings

that no retaliation occurred, we affirm the Board’s decision.

I

Dr. Mikaia is a Research Chemist in the Mass Spectrometry Data Center of the Materials Measurement Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), within the Department of Commerce. 

His job duties prior to the events underlying this appeal 

included evaluating data for inclusion in NIST’s Mass 

Spectral Library—which is published with updates every 

three years—and serving as a liaison for certain contract 

scientists assisting with this work.

According to Dr. Mikaia, over the course of roughly six 

months from December 2016 to June 2017, he made whistleblower disclosures regarding contractor management;

and in retaliation the agency revoked his conference travel, 

attempted to remove his contractor duties, issued him a letter of reprimand, set new unattainable performance standards, and created a hostile work environment for him. 

During this same period, the Mass Spectrometry group was 

working to finalize the 2017 Library for public release after 

learning from Dr. Mikaia in January 2017 that he would 

not be done with his data evaluations on time.

After filing a complaint of whistleblower reprisal with 

the Office of Special Counsel, Dr. Mikaia filed an individual 

right of action appeal with the MSPB. Following a fourday hearing, the Administrative Judge issued an initial decision concluding that although Dr. Mikaia made a prima 

facie case with respect to one protected disclosure, the 

agency provided clear and convincing evidence that it 

Case: 19-1533 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 04/10/2020
MIKAIA v. COMMERCE 3

would have taken the alleged personnel actions against 

him regardless of that disclosure. Mikaia v. Dep’t of Commerce, No. DC-1221-17-0794-W-2, slip op. at 32–36, 77,

2018 WL 6065200 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 16, 2018) (“Board Decision”). The Administrative Judge determined that the sole 

protected disclosure occurred on February 14, 2017, when 

Dr. Mikaia reported that contractors were being assigned 

work beyond the scope of their contracts in violation of the 

Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. Crediting record evidence and testimony from Dr. Mikaia’s colleagues and supervisors, the Administrative Judge concluded that the 

agency took the asserted personnel actions largely in response to learning that Dr. Mikaia was behind on his data 

evaluations rather than for retaliatory reasons. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge denied corrective action.

The Administrative Judge’s initial decision became the 

final decision of the Board on December 21, 2018. See

5 U.S.C. § 7701(e)(1). Dr. Mikaia timely petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

II

Under our narrow review, we will set aside a final decision of the Board only if the decision is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or 

(3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(c).

We first address Dr. Mikaia’s challenge to the Administrative Judge’s determination that three of his asserted 

whistleblowing activities were not “protected” under 

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and § 2302(b)(9). As to the first, in 

December 2016, Dr. Mikaia found out that a contractor was 

“supervising” another NIST contractor’s employee, which 

he believed improper under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR); he told his supervisor and another lead scientist that this was “wrong.” J.A. 2405–06. Dr. Mikaia 

Case: 19-1533 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 04/10/2020
4 MIKAIA v. COMMERCE

argues that the Administrative Judge erred in finding this 

disclosure not protected under § 2302(b)(8)(A), which applies to “any disclosure of information” that an employee 

“reasonably believes evidences (i) any violation of any law, 

rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross 

waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and 

specific danger to public health or safety.” Specifically, Dr. 

Mikaia argues that the evidence of this disclosure was not 

“weak at best,” as the Administrative Judge found, see

Board Decision, slip op. at 17; that his belief of impropriety 

was long held and shared by others; and that the Administrative Judge improperly viewed FAR Subpart 7.5, 48 

C.F.R. Subpt. 7.5 (“Inherently Governmental Functions”),

as the basis for Dr. Mikaia’s belief when he did not testify 

to that specific source.

None of these arguments provides a basis for reversal.

Despite describing the evidence of the December 2016 reporting as weak, the Administrative Judge nonetheless assumed that it occurred and rejected it as an overly vague 

claim that failed to identify wrongdoing or mismanagement under the FAR. Board Decision, slip op. at 15–18. 

Dr. Mikaia nowhere explains what law, rule, or regulation 

he believed was being violated. Based on Dr. Mikaia’s citation to FAR Subpart 7.5 in his individual right of action 

appeal [J.A. 137], the Administrative Judge analyzed that 

set of regulations and found nothing prohibiting the reported contractor interaction. We see no error in this analysis or the Administrative Judge’s focus on regulations 

expressly identified by Dr. Mikaia. Lastly, that Dr. Mikaia’s belief may have been shared by other agency witnesses does not establish its reasonableness. See Lachance 

v. White, 174 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A purely 

subjective perspective of an employee is not sufficient even 

if shared by other employees.”).

The last two disputed activities occurred in April 2017 

when Dr. Mikaia filed both an informal grievance and a 

formal grievance in response to receiving a letter of 

Case: 19-1533 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 04/10/2020
MIKAIA v. COMMERCE 5

reprimand. Dr. Mikaia argues that the Administrative 

Judge should have counted these grievances as activities 

protected under § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), which applies to exercising any legally authorized “appeal, complaint, or grievance 

right . . . with regard to remedying a violation of 

[§ 2302(b)(8)].” We likewise see no error in the Administrative Judge’s treatment of these grievances. Although at 

certain points the grievances mention conduct now asserted as violating § 2302(b)(8), Dr. Mikaia filed both grievances in order to oppose the letter of reprimand on its 

merits and to address its alleged inaccuracies—not to “remedy[]” the earlier actions mentioned. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i); see 

J.A. 589, 599 (requesting that the reprimand be “rescinded”).

Next, we turn to Dr. Mikaia’s contention that the Administrative Judge made various factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence. These arguments 

misunderstand the nature of our substantial evidence review. See Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 935 F.3d 

1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he presence of evidence 

supporting the opposite outcome does not preclude substantial evidence from supporting the Board’s fact finding.”). We find sufficient record evidence to support the 

Administrative Judge’s conclusions that (1) Dr. Mikaia

was not timely performing his evaluation work; (2) he refused to provide an estimated evaluation completion date; 

and (3) the relevant coworker interactions were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.

Dr. Mikaia also argues that substantial evidence does 

not support the Administrative Judge’s conclusion that the 

agency would have taken the same personnel actions even 

without Dr. Mikaia’s February 14 disclosure of potential 

Anti-Deficiency Act violations, arguing that the timing of 

the ensuing personnel actions shows otherwise. In our 

view, the agency supplied clear and convincing evidence to 

overcome any retaliatory implications to be drawn from the 

Case: 19-1533 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 04/10/2020
6 MIKAIA v. COMMERCE

timing alone. See 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(2); Carr v. Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (adopting factors for evaluating whether the employing agency has met 

its burden).

Finally, we reject Dr. Mikaia’s challenges to the Administrative Judge’s findings that several agency witnesses were more credible than Dr. Mikaia. We see no 

reason to depart in this case from our traditional deference 

to administrative judges on such matters. See Bieber v. 

Dep’t of Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The 

credibility determinations of an administrative judge are 

virtually unreviewable on appeal.”).

III

We have considered Dr. Mikaia’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons explained 

above, we affirm the Board’s decision.

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 19-1533 Document: 39 Page: 6 Filed: 04/10/2020