Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03144/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03144-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Commerce
Intervenor
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Hoa Nguyen
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HOA NGUYEN,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2015-3144

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-14-0767-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: May 6, 2016

______________________ 

HOA NGUYEN, Springfield, VA, pro se.

MICHAEL ANTON CARNEY, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

Case: 15-3144 Document: 66-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2016
2 NGUYEN v. MSPB

ROBERT C. BIGLER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by 

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

T. BLADES, JR. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, MOORE, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Ms. Hoa Nguyen petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or 

“the Board”) dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Because we agree that Ms. Nguyen has failed to nonfrivolously allege that her retirement was involuntary, we

agree that the Board lacked jurisdiction, and we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Nguyen served as a Supervisory Patent Examiner 

at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“the 

agency”). On September 6, 2013, Ms. Nguyen received a 

Notice of Proposed Reduction in Grade from a Supervisory 

Patent Examiner to a Patent Examiner. The notice was 

issued by her direct supervisor, Mr. Derris Banks. Mr. 

Banks’s notice alleged that she had violated rules prohibiting nepotism in attempting to use her position in the 

agency to prevent her son, a probationary patent examiner also at the agency, from being fired. Specifically, the 

letter alleged that Ms. Nguyen had approached two 

directors of technology centers to ask if her son could be 

transferred to their departments rather than be terminated. 

On October 18, 2013, then-Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, Valencia Martin-Wallace, 

determined that Ms. Nguyen should be reduced in grade. 

Finding statements from the directors of the technology 

Case: 15-3144 Document: 66-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2016
NGUYEN v. MSPB 3

units to be “more credible” than Ms. Nguyen’s statements, 

Ms. Martin-Wallace found that Ms. Nguyen’s “unacceptable and inappropriate” behavior in relation to her son’s 

firing necessitated the reduction in grade, effective two 

days later on October 20, 2013. J.A. 75–76. Ms. MartinWallace’s decision letter apprised Ms. Nguyen of her right

to appeal the decision to the Board. Shortly after receiving the decision, Ms. Nguyen also received her yearly 

performance review from Mr. Banks, which reflected a 

reduced rating. Ms. Nguyen, apparently unhappy with 

the reduction in grade and performance review, discussed 

with Mr. Banks the possibility of resigning. 

Thereafter, believing that Ms. Nguyen had indeed already decided to resign, Mr. Banks ordered that technicians collect Ms. Nguyen’s government-supplied laptop. 

When the technicians arrived to collect the laptop, Ms. 

Nguyen objected and called Mr. Banks. Mr. Banks came 

to Ms. Nguyen’s office, and, according to Ms. Nguyen’s 

allegations, demanded a definitive answer on whether Ms. 

Nguyen intended to resign. Ms. Nguyen informed Mr. 

Banks that she did not intend to resign. Ms. Nguyen 

then sent an email to Mr. Banks, stating that she felt that 

she was “being forced . . . to resign, to quit instantly per 

your behavior.” J.A. 62. After receiving this email, Mr. 

Banks and another supervisor stopped by Ms. Nguyen’s 

office and assured her that she could take her time to 

make the decision on whether to resign or not. Mr. Banks 

also later replied to Ms. Nguyen’s email reiterating that 

“[a]s we stated multiple times today, the decision of 

whether to resign or stay is completely up to you. If you 

decide to resign, the decision as to when you would like to 

resign is also completely up to you.” J.A. 62.

Mr. Banks also ordered that Ms. Nguyen’s access to 

supervisory functions of the agency computer system be 

revoked pursuant to her pending reduction in grade. 

Apparently finding this to be the last straw, Ms. Nguyen 

Case: 15-3144 Document: 66-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2016
4 NGUYEN v. MSPB

then went to human resources to pick up retirement 

papers.

At some point during the sequence of events, Ms. 

Nguyen also sent emails to Ms. Martin-Wallace, the 

deciding official at the agency, offering to drop all future 

appeal rights in exchange for a suspension of up to thirty 

days instead of the reduction of grade. In these emails, 

Ms. Nguyen stated that “in the event that” the offer was 

refused, she was “preparing . . . immediate retirement 

paperwork.” J.A. 59. Ms. Nguyen was informed via email 

that Ms. Martin-Wallace was out of the office and could 

not reply to the offer until the subsequent Monday, one 

day after the reduction in grade would be effective. Ms. 

Nguyen filed her retirement papers that Friday, effective 

the next day, Saturday, October 19, 2013, and one day 

before her reduction in grade would have gone into effect. 

Ms. Nguyen appealed to the MSPB on October 28, 

2013, alleging involuntary retirement.1 After briefing, 

the administrative judge dismissed the appeal, finding 

that Ms. Nguyen had “failed to articulate a nonfrivolous 

 

1 Ms. Nguyen also filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint with the agency, alleging that 

various agency actions, including her demotion, were the 

result of reprisal and discrimination based on race and 

national origin. On May 15, 2014, the agency issued its 

final decision finding no discrimination. The Board did 

not consider her discrimination claim because it found 

that it lacked jurisdiction over her involuntary retirement 

claim. See Cruz v. Dep’t of the Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 

1245–46 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (en banc) (holding that when 

presented with a mixed case of constructive removal and 

discrimination, the Board only has authority to decide the 

discrimination issue if the Board has jurisdiction over the 

alleged constructive adverse action). 

Case: 15-3144 Document: 66-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/06/2016
NGUYEN v. MSPB 5

allegation” that she had been forced to retire. J.A. 113. 

The full Board affirmed, finding that Ms. Nguyen “has not 

made allegations that, if proven, could show that a reasonable person in her circumstances would have viewed 

retirement as the only viable alternative.” J.A. 9. 

Ms. Nguyen petitioned for review by our court. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 

U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) & (d). We must affirm a decision of 

the Board unless it is found to be “(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); 

Hayes v. Dep’t of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 

1984).

DISCUSSION

Section 7513(d) of title 5 grants the Board jurisdiction 

to hear appeals over certain enumerated adverse actions 

taken by an agency against an employee. Among these 

“adverse actions” are removals, reductions in grade or 

pay, suspensions, and furloughs. 5 U.S.C. § 7512. To 

establish Board jurisdiction, the employee must demonstrate that she is a covered employee and that the agency 

took an enumerated adverse action. See Garcia v. Dep’t of 

Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 

(en banc).

The Board does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals 

from voluntary employee-initiated actions, such as resignation and retirement. Id. at 1328. However, in some 

circumstances, an employee can demonstrate that an 

otherwise facially voluntary act, such as a resignation or 

retirement, “was involuntary and thus tantamount to 

forced removal.” Shoaf v. Dep’t of Agric., 260 F.3d 1336, 

1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). This court has 

held that, to demonstrate an involuntary resignation or 

Case: 15-3144 Document: 66-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/06/2016
6 NGUYEN v. MSPB

retirement, a petitioner must make non-frivolous allegations that (1) the agency effectively imposed the terms of 

the employee’s resignation or retirement; (2) the employee 

had no realistic alternative but to resign or retire; and (3) 

the employee’s resignation or retirement was the result of 

improper acts by the agency. Garcia, 437 F.3d at 1329. A 

“mere assertion does not provide a basis for Board jurisdiction in [a] voluntary resignation case,” Cruz v. Dept. of 

the Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (en banc); 

rather, the petitioner’s allegations must be “supported by 

affidavits or other evidence.” Dick v. Dep’t of Veterans 

Affairs, 290 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (overruled on 

other grounds). Ms. Nguyen alleges that her choice to 

retire was coerced and involuntary, and thus argues that

the Board has jurisdiction over her appeal. 

First, Ms. Nguyen contends that her retirement was 

coerced because the agency knew or should have known 

that her demotion action could not be substantiated. In 

Schultz v. U.S. Navy, we found that if an “employee can 

show that the agency knew that the reason for the threatened removal” cannot “be substantiated, the threatened 

action by the agency is purely coercive” and thus faciallyvoluntary acts resulting from the threatened removal may 

be involuntary. 810 F.2d 1133, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Ms. 

Nguyen did not make this argument before the Board, 

and therefore it is waived. See J.A. 4 n.3 (“Although the 

appellant alleges she has engaged in no wrongdoing, she 

has not contended that the agency knew or should have 

known that its demotion action could not be substantiated 

or that the agency lacked an arguable basis for the proposed action.”); Elmore v. Dep’t of Transp., 421 F.3d 1339, 

1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In any event, Ms. Nguyen has not 

sufficiently alleged even on review that the reduction in 

grade could not be substantiated. The notice of a proposed reduction in grade cited two specific incidents 

where Ms. Nguyen allegedly sought to have her son 

Case: 15-3144 Document: 66-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/06/2016
NGUYEN v. MSPB 7

transferred rather than being fired. These allegations 

were supported by statements from the two directors 

involved. Ms. Nguyen has not sufficiently alleged that 

the agency knew, or should have known, that there was 

no “viable basis” to support her reduction in grade. See 

J.A. 4 n.3. If Ms. Nguyen concluded the agency’s position 

was unsupported, her remedy was to appeal the reduction 

in grade to the MSPB. 

Second, Ms. Nguyen argues that she did not have adequate time to decide whether to retire or receive a demotion, and thus she was forced to retire. In situations 

where an employee has been forced to make an immediate 

decision, such as when an employer threatens an employee to “resign now, [or the supervisor] will press charges 

immediately,” courts have found improper coercion sufficient to render resignations involuntary. Paroczay v. 

Hodges, 297 F.2d 439, 440 (D.C. Cir. 1961); see also Middleton v. Dep’t of Def., 185 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 

1999). Ms. Nguyen has not alleged that she faced such 

circumstances. Rather, she simply alleges that Mr. Banks 

demanded a definitive answer as to whether or not she 

was retiring. Further, according to Ms. Nguyen’s own 

statements, her supervisors told her to take her time in 

making a decision and that the choice of whether and 

when to resign was hers, and hers alone.2 The Board did 

not err in finding that Ms. Nguyen’s allegations here do 

 

2 Ms. Nguyen alleges that she received Mr. Banks’s 

email after she had already turned in her retirement 

papers. But according to her own sworn statement, Mr. 

Banks and another director came to her office before she 

turned in her retirement papers to assure her that she 

“could take time to make the decision on whether to quit 

or not.” J.A. 54. 

Case: 15-3144 Document: 66-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/06/2016
8 NGUYEN v. MSPB

not amount to improper coercion rendering her resignation involuntary.

Lastly, Ms. Nguyen argues that she was not properly 

informed that her decision to retire would terminate her 

appeal rights, and thus her decision to retire was involuntary. In general, an agency is not required to inform an 

employee about the ramifications of voluntary decisions, 

such as the decision to retire or resign. Williams v. Dep’t 

of Agric., 832 F.2d 1259, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1987). However, 

“[a] resignation or retirement is involuntary if it is obtained by agency misinformation or deception.” Covington v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 750 F.2d 937, 942 

(Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, when an agency has affirmatively 

misled an employee, by providing inaccurate information 

or by failing to correct inaccurate information regarding 

the employee’s rights, the resulting action may be involuntary. See id. But Ms. Nguyen does not allege that the 

agency here gave her incorrect information. Rather she 

argues that her emails indicated that she (incorrectly) 

believed that she could still appeal after retiring and that 

the agency misled her by not correcting her error. This 

allegation, however, is not supported by evidence. Ms. 

Nguyen’s emails do not indicate that she believed she 

could still appeal after voluntarily retiring. Rather, in the 

emails, Ms. Nguyen stated that she was considering 

different options, writing that she “intend[ed] to file an 

appeal and/or an EEO complaint,” but that she was “also 

considering retiring immediately in order to avoid having 

[her] record damaged.” J.A. 61. Moreover, the emails 

indicate that Ms. Nguyen was represented by counsel, 

who presumably could have correctly counseled her on the 

ramifications of deciding to retire. Ms. Nguyen’s allegations of deception are not non-frivolous. 

Ms. Nguyen has not successfully alleged facts that, if 

proven, would demonstrate that her decision to retire was 

involuntary. As we have previously said, the “imminence 

Case: 15-3144 Document: 66-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/06/2016
NGUYEN v. MSPB 9

of a less desirable alternative does not render involuntary 

the choice made.” Cruz, 934 F.2d at 1245. Ms. Nguyen, 

faced with a reduction in grade, voluntarily decided to

retire rather than appeal her reduction in grade. We 

therefore affirm the decision of the board dismissing her 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 15-3144 Document: 66-2 Page: 9 Filed: 05/06/2016