Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01620/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01620-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Health and Human Services
Respondent
Jwyanza Reed
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

JWYANZA REED,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1620

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-1221-21-0222-W-3.

______________________

Decided: January 8, 2025

______________________

JWYANZA REED, Greenbelt, MD, pro se. 

 ALEXANDER BREWER, Civil Division, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY.

 ______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 24-1620 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2025
2 REED v. HHS

PER CURIAM.

Jwyanza Reed petitions pro se from a decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) sustaining an 

action of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (“HHS”) requiring Ms. Reed to take leave without 

pay because she delayed signing a telework agreement. We 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

In September 2019, Ms. Reed began working for HHS 

as an Attorney Advisor in the agency’s Office of Medicare 

Hearings and Appeals Arlington Field Office. Her 

appointment was in the excepted service and subject to a 

two-year probationary period. Her position was covered by 

a collective bargaining agreement between HHS and the 

National Treasury Employees Union (“NTEU”). 

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, HHS maintained a 

telework policy that allowed Attorney Advisors to work 

remotely after 90 days of satisfactory performance. To 

participate, an Attorney Advisor was required to enter into 

a written telework agreement. Ms. Reed did not 

participate in the program before March 2020.

On March 10, 2020, in light of evolving workplace 

safety guidance from the Office of Personnel Management 

(“OPM”) on the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, 

Ms. Reed’s immediate supervisor, Administrative Law 

Judge (“ALJ”) Kenneth Luciano, informed her that his 

team would likely need to work remotely, and he 

encouraged Ms. Reed to complete a telework agreement. 

Later that day, Program Analyst Michelle Turner emailed 

Ms. Reed, asking her to complete a telework agreement 

and the associated training by the next day.

On March 11, 2020, Ms. Reed responded to Ms. Turner, 

stating that she “was not interested in teleworking” at that 

Case: 24-1620 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2025
REED v. HHS 3

time. S. App’x 20.1 That afternoon, ALJ Luciano informed 

his team by email that they were required to bring home 

their laptops each day in case the agency transitioned to 

remote work and warned that employees who failed to 

bring home their computers would be required to take 

“annual leave . . . for the time the person is without the 

laptop.” S. App’x 21.

That same afternoon, Carlton Drew, Director of the 

Arlington Field Office, contacted Ms. Reed, inquiring about 

the status of her telework agreement. Ms. Reed responded 

that under the NTEU collective bargaining agreement with 

HHS, “participation in the telework program is voluntary,” 

and that an employee could not telework without first 

certifying that he or she possessed the requisite equipment 

and infrastructure to complete his or her duties from home. 

S. App’x 21–22. Ms. Reed further explained that she had 

“not signed a telework agreement with [her] current 

supervisor,” and that she believed it would be “highly 

irresponsible for [her] to certify that [she had] the 

infrastructure to work from home.” S. App’x 22.

On March 17, 2020, HHS mandated remote work for 

all employees. Observing that Ms. Reed had not yet 

returned a completed telework agreement, ALJ Luciano 

told her that she was required to use leave time until she 

completed the required agreement and training. Ms. Reed 

did not complete the paperwork until March 20, 2020.

On March 25, 2020, Ms. Reed returned to work and 

submitted a request for leave without pay for the period of 

March 17, 2020, to March 24, 2020. ALJ Luciano granted 

the request. For several months thereafter, ALJ Luciano 

expressed concerns with Ms. Reed’s performance. On 

September 25, 2020, he sent Ms. Reed a letter notifying her

1 Citations to “S. App’x” are to the supplemental 

appendix filed by the government.

Case: 24-1620 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2025
4 REED v. HHS

that her employment was terminated effective that day. 

The letter explained that Ms. Reed’s termination was due 

in part to her failure to timely complete her telework 

agreement.

Following her termination, Ms. Reed filed a complaint 

of whistleblower reprisal with the Office of Special 

Counsel. She alleged that she made a protected disclosure 

and engaged in a protected activity when she refused to 

sign a telework agreement on the ground that, under the 

NTEU collective bargaining agreement with HHS, 

participation in the telework program was voluntary. 

She claimed that HHS unlawfully retaliated against 

her by making her take leave without pay and by 

terminating her employment, among other alleged actions. 

The OSC completed its investigation and issued Ms. Reed 

an appeal notice. On February 5, 2021, Ms. Reed timely 

filed an individual right of action appeal to the Board.

On February 21, 2023, an administrative judge (“AJ”) 

of the Board issued an initial decision on Ms. Reed’s appeal. 

The AJ found that Ms. Reed made a protected disclosure 

under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) on March 11, 2020, “when she 

refused to sign a telework agreement on the grounds that 

doing so would violate the parties’ [collective bargaining 

agreement].” S. App’x 37. The AJ also found that Ms. Reed 

suffered personnel actions “by virtue of her [leave-withoutpay] period and her termination,” S. App’x 39, and that 

Ms. Reed’s protected disclosure was a contributing factor 

with respect to both personnel actions. 

Having determined that Ms. Reed had established a 

prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation, the AJ 

proceeded to consider whether the agency had shown by 

clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the 

same action in the absence of Ms. Reed’s protected 

disclosure. In making this determination, the AJ used the 

Carr factors. See Carr v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 185 F.3d 1318 

(Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Case: 24-1620 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2025
REED v. HHS 5

The AJ concluded that HHS proved by clear and 

convincing evidence that it would have forced Ms. Reed to 

take leave without pay absent her protected disclosure. 

Central to the AJ’s determination were the facts that the 

parties’ collective bargaining agreement provided that “the 

Employer may require employees to work at an alternate 

site in case of emergency situations,” and the early period 

of the COVID-19 pandemic met the definition of an 

emergency situation. S. App’x 43. The AJ further rejected 

Ms. Reed’s contention that her period of leave without pay 

was unnecessarily delayed when it took HHS several days 

to process her telework agreement once she finally 

completed it. 

In contrast, the AJ concluded that HHS failed to show 

that it would have terminated Ms. Reed absent her 

protected disclosure. The AJ thus granted in part Ms. 

Reed’s request for corrective action and ordered HHS to 

reinstate her, retroactive to September 25, 2020, with back 

pay and other relief.

HHS petitioned for full Board review. Ms. Reed filed a 

cross-petition concerning the adverse decision on the leavewithout-pay issue. The Board dismissed HHS’s petition, 

denied Ms. Reed’s cross-petition, and affirmed the initial 

decision.

Ms. Reed seeks this court’s review with respect to the 

leave-without-pay issue. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We may disturb the decision of the Board only if 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). We review the Board’s fact findings for 

substantial evidence, and we give no deference to its 

Case: 24-1620 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2025
6 REED v. HHS

determinations on matters of law. See Brenner v. Dep’t of 

Veterans Affs., 990 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The 

petitioner “bears the burden of establishing error in the 

[Board’s] decision.” Jones v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 

834 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Harris v. 

Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 

1998)).

On appeal, as to her leave without pay, Ms. Reed 

argues that “the [Board’s] findings were erroneous” 

because the Board failed to appreciate that “[t]he agency 

violated the Telework Enhancement Act” when it required 

her to sign a telework agreement and forced her to take 

leave until she did so. Pet’r Informal Br. 8. According to 

Ms. Reed, the Telework Enhancement Act’s text, purpose, 

and legislative history confirm that under the Act, federal 

employees may telework on a voluntary, not mandatory, 

basis. Id. at 7–8. Her theory appears to be that her 

employer would not have taken the same action against 

her in the absence of her protected disclosures because her 

employer could not have taken such action in light of the 

Telework Enhancement Act. Id. at 6–8. We are not 

persuaded.

There is no merit to Ms. Reed’s argument that HHS 

violated the Telework Enhancement Act when it required 

her to take leave without pay after she refused to sign a 

telework agreement. The Act requires agencies to 

establish telework policies, determine employees’ eligibility 

for telework, and notify employees of their eligibility. 5 

U.S.C. § 6502(a). To participate in telework, eligible 

employees must enter into a written agreement with their 

agency employer that “outlines the specific work 

arrangement that is agreed to.” Id. § 6502(b)(2). OPM has 

generally interpreted the Act to mean that employee 

participation in a telework program is voluntary. See Pet’r 

Informal Br. 7–8 (citing Telework FAQ, U.S. OFF. OF PERS.

MGMT., https://www.opm.gov/faq/telework/Can-an-agencyforce-an-employee-to-work-at-home.ashx (last accessed 

Case: 24-1620 Document: 18 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2025
REED v. HHS 7

Dec. 17, 2024)); see also U.S. OFF. OF PERS. MGMT., 2021 

GUIDE TO TELEWORK AND REMOTE WORK IN THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT (2021). However, as we have previously 

recognized, the Act also requires agencies to “incorporate 

telework into the continuity of operations plans of that 

agency,” which will “supersed[e] any telework policy” for 

the duration of time that the continuity of operations plan 

is in place. Carter v. Dep’t of Def., No. 2022-1305, 2022 WL 

2128592, at *3 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2022) (unpublished), cert 

denied, 143 S. Ct. 490 (2022) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 6504(d)). 

Here, HHS issued continuity of operations guidelines 

on March 16, 2020, which mandated that: 

All employees must be on an approved telework 

agreement (regular/recurring or episodic). 

Managers are responsible for ensuring employees 

have approved telework agreements. Employees 

must be telework ready by having their 

government issued computer, phone headset 

(recommended), PIV card, and external card reader 

(if applicable). Managers are responsible for 

ensuring employees are telework ready.

S. App’x 24. HHS transitioned to remote work the next day, 

March 17, 2020. This continuity of operations plan 

superseded HHS’s previous telework policies and, in no 

uncertain terms, required all employees to enter telework 

agreements, in conformance with the requirements of the 

Act. We therefore cannot agree with Ms. Reed that the 

Board’s “findings were erroneous,” Pet’r Informal Br. 8, 

because HHS did not violate the Telework Enhancement 

Act by requiring her to work remotely during the 

pandemic. See Carter, 2022 WL 2128592, at *3–5.

2 

2 We also reject Ms. Reed’s argument that the Board 

erred by not permitting her to file a reply brief. She was 

not automatically entitled to file a reply, and the Board did 

Case: 24-1620 Document: 18 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2025
8 REED v. HHS

We have considered the remainder of Ms. Reed’s 

arguments and find them unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED

Costs

No costs.

not err in this regard. “Procedural matters regarding 

discovery and evidentiary issues ‘fall within the sound 

discretion of the [B]oard and its officials.’” Rueter v. Dep’t 

of Com., 63 F.4th 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (alteration in 

original) (quoting Curtin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 846 F.2d 

1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Ms. Reed does not establish 

that the denial of her motion was an abuse of discretion, 

much less that the Board’s alleged error was harmful.

Case: 24-1620 Document: 18 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2025