Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01079/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01079-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Homeland Security
Intervenor
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
R.G.
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

R.G.,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2016-1079

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-1221-15-0486-W-1.

______________________ 

Decided: August 9, 2016

______________________ 

R.G., pro se.

KATRINA LEDERER, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

REBECCA SARAH KRUSER, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Case: 16-1079 Document: 44-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/09/2016
2 R.G. v. MSPB

Justice, Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented 

by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. 

Petitioner R.G. seeks appellate review of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decision dismissing his

individual right of action (IRA) whistleblower appeal for 

absence of jurisdiction.1 The MSPB held that the events 

recited did not constitute whistleblowing; we affirm the 

dismissal.

BACKGROUND

R.G. holds an excepted service position as a Federal 

Air Marshal with the Department of Homeland Security. 

At the beginning of his 2014 performance rating period, 

again at the mid-year performance review, and again in 

the third quarter, R.G. asked his immediate supervisor 

what he must do to receive a rating of “Achieved Excellence” for all performance criteria. R.G.’s supervisor 

responded “I don’t know” on all three occasions. R.G. 

reported these answers to his supervisor’s supervisor, by 

letters of October 28, 2014 and December 2, 2014. R.G. 

states that his final 2014 performance rating was artificially low because his immediate supervisor retaliated 

against him because of these reports.

R.G. filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) alleging reprisal for whistleblowing and/or 

protected activity. The OSC determined to close its file on 

1 R.G. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. SF-1221-15-

0486-W-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 28, 2015) (“MSPB Final Order”). 

 

Case: 16-1079 Document: 44-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/09/2016
R.G. v. MSPB 3

March 25, 2015, stating that “[b]ased on our evaluation of 

the relevant law and facts included in the information you 

submitted, we have made a final determination to close 

our file in this matter.” Letter from Julie Martin-Korb, 

Attorney, Complaints Examining Unit of the U.S. Office 

of Special Counsel, to R.G. (March 25, 2015) (“OSC Final 

Determination Letter”). In accordance with the statute, 

the OSC informed R.G. of his right to pursue an IRA 

appeal with the MSPB. Letter from Julie Martin-Korb, 

Attorney, Complaints Examining Unit of the U.S. Office 

of Special Counsel, to R.G. accompanying OSC Final 

Determination Letter (March 25, 2015). R.G. filed an IRA 

appeal with the MSPB on July 6, 2015. 

The MSPB administrative judge received testimony 

and argument from R.G. and from the agency, and held

that R.G.’s complaints to his supervisor’s supervisor were

not protected disclosures or protected activity, and that 

R.G. did not have a cause of action for whistleblowing. 

The MSPB dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. MSPB Final Order at 11. R.G. appealed to this 

court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

Jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de 

novo. Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 47 F.3d 409, 410 

(Fed. Cir. 1995). The MPSB’s jurisdiction includes

“[a]ppeals involving an allegation that the action was 

based on appellant’s whistleblowing or other protected 

activity.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(b)(2); see 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1) 

(right to appeal from “any action which is appealable 

under any law, rule, or regulation”); 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a) 

(individual right of action for “any personnel action taken” 

because of whistleblowing or other protected activity).

The employee must make a non-frivolous allegation 

that “(1) he engaged in whistleblowing activity by making 

a protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), and (2) 

the disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency’s 

Case: 16-1079 Document: 44-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/09/2016
4 R.G. v. MSPB

decision to take or fail to take a personnel action as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a).” Yunus v. Dep’t of Veterans 

Affairs, 242 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This court 

has elaborated: 

Specifically, the petitioner must establish by a 

preponderance of the evidence the following four 

elements: (1) the acting official has the authority 

to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action; (2) the aggrieved employee made a disclosure 

protected under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A); (3) the 

acting official used his authority to take, or refuse 

to take, a personnel action against the aggrieved 

employee; and (4) the protected disclosure was a 

contributing factor in the agency's personnel action.

Kahn v. Dep’t of Justice, 618 F.3d 1306, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). 

The whistleblower statute provides that a supervisor 

may not take any personnel action with respect to an 

employee because of:

(A) any disclosure of information by an employee 

or applicant which the employee or applicant 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,

if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by 

law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the 

interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs. . .

Case: 16-1079 Document: 44-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/09/2016
R.G. v. MSPB 5

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A). The inquiry is whether R.G. had 

a reasonable belief that his report to his supervisor’s 

supervisor met the definition in § 2302(b)(8)(A). The 

inquiry is objective: “could a disinterested observer with 

knowledge of the essential facts known to and readily 

ascertainable by the employee reasonably conclude that 

the actions of the government evidence” a violation of law, 

rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement, or abuse of 

authority. 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.” Id.

R.G.’s asserted protected disclosure is his report of his 

supervisor’s responses to his questions about how to 

achieve a rating of “Achieved Excellence.” R.G. stated 

that his report revealed a violation of TSA Management 

Directive 1100.43-3, or alternatively, revealed gross 

mismanagement or an abuse of authority. The Department of Homeland Security responded that there was not 

a reasonable belief that the report revealed a violation of 

law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement or an 

abuse of authority. Thus the Department states that 

R.G.’s report to his supervisor’s supervisor was not an act 

of whistleblowing.

The MSPB reviewed the statutory criteria as follows

for whistleblowing acts: Gross mismanagement is “a 

management action or inaction which creates a substantial risk of significant adverse impact upon the agency’s 

ability to accomplish its mission.” Kavanagh v. M.S.P.B., 

176 F. App’x 133, 135 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting White v. 

Dep’t of Air Force, 63 M.S.P.R. 90, 95 (1994)).

R.G. states that his supervisor’s inability to improve 

his subordinate’s performance was gross mismanagement. 

The Department of Homeland Security states that it 

provides written performance standards in every “core 

competency” area and “performance goal,” and that written guidelines state the effect on the rating due to perCase: 16-1079 Document: 44-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/09/2016
6 R.G. v. MSPB

forming above or below the performance standard. The 

MSPB held that the supervisor’s inability or reluctance to 

tell R.G. how to improve his performance is not the gross 

mismanagement to which the whistleblower statute is 

directed. Error has not been shown in this ruling. 

R.G. also states that his reports revealed a violation of 

TSA Management Directive No. 1100.43-3, which states, 

in relevant part, that: “Rating officials are responsible for 

. . . (4) Observing, coaching, and providing feedback to 

employees.” R.G. states that his supervisor’s failure to 

provide feedback constitutes a violation of “law, rule, or 

regulation,” and thus that his report of this failure is 

protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. 

On this appeal, the agency has agreed for the sake of 

argument that Directive No. 1100.43-3 is a “rule” under 

section 2302(b)(8)(A). The MSPB held, and we agree, that 

this management flaw did not constitute a “violation of 

the agency’s management directive” as contemplated by 

the Whistleblower Protection Act, “especially when accounting for the written standards provided in the performance plan of which the appellant was aware.” MSPB 

Final Order at 3.

R.G. also states that his supervisor’s inadequate response constitute an abuse of authority. “An abuse of 

authority requires an ‘arbitrary or capricious exercise of 

power by a federal official or employee that adversely 

affects the rights of any person or that results in personal 

gain or advantage to himself or to preferred other persons.’” Elkassir v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 257 F. App’x 326, 

329 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting D’Elia v. Dep’t of Treasury, 

60 M.S.P.R. 226, 232 (1993), overruled on other grounds 

by Thomas v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 77 M.S.P.R. 224 

(1998)). R.G. argued that his rights were affected in that 

he lost awards and/or in-position increases because of his 

supervisor’s failure to advise how his performance might 

achieve the excellence level.

Case: 16-1079 Document: 44-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/09/2016
R.G. v. MSPB 7

The MSPB held that the supervisor’s answer to R.G.’s

question was not an “arbitrary or capricious exercise of 

power,” and that no loss of rights or other retaliation had 

been established. The MSPB explained that R.G. had not 

established a right to receive an answer to his question, or 

that his supervisor’s inadequate response resulted in 

personal gain or advantage to herself or to others.” MSPB 

Final Order at 4. The MSPB apparently did not view the 

incidents as whistleblowing with adverse consequences. 

Precedent supports this view. Frederick v. Dep’t of Justice, 73 F.3d 349, 353 (Fed. Cir. 1996), supplemented, 1996 

WL 293120 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 1996) (“The WPA was 

enacted to protect employees who report genuine infractions of law, not to encourage employees to report arguably minor and inadvertent miscues occurring in the 

conscientious carrying out of one’s assigned duties.”).

Although there were differences of opinion presented 

to the MSPB, the MSPB held a hearing and observed the 

witnesses. On the record before us, we do not discern 

reversible error in the MSPB’s ruling of no violation of the 

Whistleblower Protection Act.

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 16-1079 Document: 44-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/09/2016