Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01546/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01546-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory W. Cofield
Petitioner
Department of Defense
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GREGORY W. COFIELD,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-1546

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-14-0114-B-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 14, 2016

______________________ 

GREGORY W. COFIELD, Fairfield, CA, pro se.

JIMMY MCBIRNEY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN

C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., STEVEN J.

GILLINGHAM. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and DYK, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 16-1546 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2016
 2 COFIELD v. DEFENSE

PER CURIAM. 

Gregory Cofield appeals the final decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying his petition 

for enforcement of his settlement agreement with the 

Department of Defense. For the reasons discussed below, 

we affirm.

BACKGROUND

This appeal concerns events taking place after Mr. 

Cofield and the Department of Defense (“DoD”) executed a 

settlement agreement which reinstated him to the position of Store Associate at the Travis Air Force Base Commissary. Eleven days after the settlement agreement 

became final, Mr. Cofield filed a petition for enforcement 

with the Board in which he alleged that the DoD breached 

the agreement. Mr. Cofield’s complaint was primarily 

based on behavior by his supervisor which he believed 

was hostile and in retaliation for his prior lawsuit. Mr. 

Cofield also alleged that his supervisor (1) changed his 

work schedule multiple times, (2) assigned him work 

beyond his medical restrictions, (3) required that he 

produce updated documentation regarding his medical 

restrictions, and (4) did not allow him to work on his 

petition for enforcement during work hours. 

In an initial decision, the administrative judge assigned to the case denied Mr. Cofield’s petition. In doing 

so, she found that the settlement agreement did not 

specify a work schedule and that the DoD treated Mr. 

Cofield no differently than any other employee. The 

administrative judge also found that there was no requirement that Mr. Cofield be allowed to prepare his 

petition on official time. Finally, the administrative judge 

determined that the Board did not have jurisdiction to 

hear Mr. Cofield’s retaliation claims premised on his 

supervisor’s behavior and suggested he make use of the 

grievance process instead. 

Case: 16-1546 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/14/2016
COFIELD v. DEFENSE 3

Mr. Cofield timely filed a petition for review of the initial decision. On review, the Board affirmed the administrative judge’s factual findings. The Board also 

determined that the DoD had since provided Mr. Cofield 

with appropriate accommodations for his medical restrictions, rendering that claim moot. 

However, the Board disagreed with the administrative judge’s determination that it did not have jurisdiction 

to hear Mr. Cofield’s retaliation claims. The Board explained that, in some circumstances, harassment and 

retaliation could constitute bad faith noncompliance with 

a settlement agreement and therefore be a violation of its 

terms. The Board therefore remanded the petition back 

to administrative judge to develop the record and determine whether the DoD acted in bad faith. 

On remand, the administrative judge allowed the parties to submit additional evidence regarding Mr. Cofield’s 

retaliation claims. In support of his claims, Mr. Cofield 

provided affidavits from five of his coworkers.1 The DoD 

did not submit any evidence to counter these affidavits. 

Because the DoD did not rebut the contents of Mr. Cofield’s submitted affidavits, the administrative judge 

presumed them to be true and accurate. However, the 

administrative judge found that the behavior of Mr. 

Cofield’s supervisor did not rise to an actionable level. 

Consequently, the administrative judge denied the petition. 

Mr. Cofield again petitioned the Board for review of 

the administrative judge’s decision. After review, the 

Board agreed with the administrative judge’s assessment 

 

1 Mr. Cofield had since transferred to a different 

team. His submissions only focus on the eighteen months 

between his reinstatement and subsequent transfer. 

Case: 16-1546 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/14/2016
 4 COFIELD v. DEFENSE

of the evidence and affirmed the denial of his petition. 

This appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).

DISCUSSION

Our review of the Board’s decision is limited by statute. We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it 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).

In his submissions, Mr. Cofield only appeals the 

Board’s determination that his supervisor’s behavior did 

not constitute a breach of his settlement agreement with 

the DoD. He does not appeal the Board’s determination 

that the DoD complied with the terms of the settlement 

agreement regarding his work schedule, and has provided 

appropriate accommodations for his medical restrictions. 

Because a settlement agreement is a contract, we review it just as we review any other agreement. Link v. 

Dep’t of the Treasury, 51 F.3d 1577, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

Every contract has an implied term that the parties will 

act in good faith in executing the agreement; a contract 

may be breached if a party acts in bad faith. Id. In some 

circumstances, the actions of a supervisor towards an 

employee after reinstatement, if retaliatory, may constitute bad faith noncompliance with the terms of a settlement agreement.2 Gard v. Dep’t of Educ., 180 F. App’x 

 

2 The Board has held that, because it otherwise 

lacks jurisdiction to hear claims of retaliation premised on 

a settlement agreement, the proper avenue for these 

claims is to bring a petition for enforcement of the agreeCase: 16-1546 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/14/2016
COFIELD v. DEFENSE 5

921, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, “‘[a] mere showing of 

some frictions, misunderstandings, or unpleasantness 

between the appellant and other employees or managers’ 

is not sufficient to meet the burden to establish that [an 

agency] acted in bad faith with respect to the agreement.” 

Id. at 923 (quoting Kuykendall, 68 M.S.P.R. at 323). To 

determine whether bad faith noncompliance has occurred, 

the Board has required that a petitioner must show “that 

the agency’s proven retaliatory/harassing actions, under 

the totality of the circumstances, amounted to an unjustified and substantial deprivation of her rights as incumbent of the position in question.” Kuykendall, 68 M.S.P.R. 

at 324–25.

Though we have never endorsed the Board’s “substantial deprivation” test, we see no basis for overturning the 

Board’s conclusion with respect to the conduct here. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision and deny Mr. Cofield’s request for remedies.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs.

 

ment. Kuykendall v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 68 

M.S.P.R. 314, 324–25 & n.8 (M.S.P.B. 1995).

Case: 16-1546 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/14/2016