Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01990/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01990-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
Steven J. Oliva
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

STEVEN J. OLIVA,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________

2019-1990

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-1221-17-0225-P-1.

______________________

Decided: June 15, 2020

______________________

JENNIFER CIELUCH, Covington & Burling LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for petitioner. Also represented by HAN 

PARK, RICHARD L. RAINEY, Washington, DC. 

 IGOR HELMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

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

HUNT, TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.

 ______________________

Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 06/15/2020
2 OLIVA v. DVA

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MAYER and DYK, Circuit 

Judges.

Opinion of the court filed PER CURIAM.

Opinion concurring in part filed by Chief Judge PROST.

PER CURIAM.

Steven J. Oliva appeals a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Oliva worked as an Associate Director of Pharmacy 

Customer Care at the Department of Veterans Affairs

(“VA”) Health Resource Center in Waco, Texas. In a series 

of emails beginning on December 30, 2014, Mr. Oliva accused his supervisor of preselecting an applicant for a position at the agency, which his supervisor contested as an 

allegation that he had acted improperly. On January 9, 

2015, the agency issued Mr. Oliva a letter of reprimand for 

“Inappropriate Conduct.” J.A. 2–3. 

On March 13, 2017, Mr. Oliva filed an individual right 

of action alleging that the agency’s issuance of the retaliatory letter of reprimand was a prohibited personnel action 

under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(b)(8). Mr. Oliva sought damages for: (1) lost relocation incentive pay for a job he alleges he would have received in El Paso absent the letter of reprimand,1 (2) non1 Mr. Oliva is also seeking damages for loss of the El 

Paso position in a Claims Court case on a different theory—

that the agency breached a settlement agreement by disseminating information about the letter of reprimand. Our 

decision in that case is being issued contemporaneously in 

Oliva v. United States, No. 19-2059.

Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 06/15/2020
OLIVA v. DVA 3

pecuniary damages for emotional harm.2 The Board found 

that the agency had taken a prohibited personnel action 

against Mr. Oliva because it perceived him to be a whistleblower, its perception was a contributing factor to the issuance of the letter of reprimand, and the agency had not 

shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have 

issued the letter of reprimand absent its perception of Mr. 

Oliva as a whistleblower. The Board awarded Mr. Oliva

$3,500 in emotional harm damages. The Board denied 

damages for loss of the El Paso opportunity. Mr. Oliva appeals, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review of the Board decision is limited 

by statute. We may only set aside Board decisions that are 

“(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). 

Mr. Oliva argues that the Board should have awarded 

him more damages. The Board may award “foreseeable 

consequential damages” and “compensatory damages” in a 

corrective action for a Whistleblower Protection Act claim. 

5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A).

Mr. Oliva argues that the Board erred when it denied 

him damages for lost relocation incentive pay. Mr. Oliva 

asserted that the agency’s issuance of the letter of reprimand caused him not to be selected for a position at the VA 

Medical Center in El Paso, Texas. Mr. Oliva asserted that 

if he had been selected, he would have received relocation 

2 Mr. Oliva also asserted other theories of relief, 

which the Board denied. Mr. Oliva does not challenge 

those aspects of the Board’s decision on appeal.

Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 06/15/2020
4 OLIVA v. DVA

incentive pay. The Board rejected this theory, in part because Mr. Oliva had failed to show a causal relationship 

between the issuance of the letter of reprimand and his alleged loss of relocation incentive pay. In other words, it 

was not foreseeable that the issuance of the letter of reprimand would have resulted in its disclosure during Mr. 

Oliva’s employment application process. We discern no error in the Board’s conclusion that Mr. Oliva had not established that his lost relocation incentive pay was a 

foreseeable consequence of the issuance of the letter of reprimand. See Bohac v. Dep’t of Agric., 239 F.3d 1334, 1340–

41 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that damages for a whistleblower claim are “akin” to contract damages, which are 

rooted in the common law doctrine of foreseeability).

Mr. Oliva also argues that he was entitled to more compensatory damages for emotional harm. The Board found 

that Mr. Oliva “established he experienced emotional harm 

as a result of the letter of reprimand.” J.A. 14. “[B]ased on 

the record and taking into account the severity and duration of the appellant’s emotional distress and pain related 

to the . . . letter of reprimand,” the Board awarded Mr. 

Oliva $3,500 in compensatory damages. J.A. 16. The 

Board’s award was supported by substantial evidence, and 

we see no error of law.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 06/15/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

STEVEN J. OLIVA,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________

2019-1990

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-1221-17-0225-P-1.

______________________

PROST, Chief Judge, concurring in part.

I join the per curiam opinion in full but write separately because I would affirm the Board’s decision to deny

Mr. Oliva damages for lost relocation incentive pay for an 

additional reason that the per curiam decision does not 

reach. The record establishes that the lost relocation incentive pay was available, but not guaranteed, to be offered

to the selectee of the Associate Medical Director position 

for which Mr. Oliva applied but was not selected. The 

Board found that Mr. Oliva failed to prove by preponderant 

evidence that he would have received this incentive even if 

he had been selected for the position. J.A. 6–8. Indeed, the 

only documentary evidence submitted to support 

Mr. Oliva’s claim, merely shows that the selectee for the 

Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 06/15/2020
2 OLIVA v. DVA

position was offered a different incentive, which Mr. Oliva 

admits would not have been applicable to him. See J.A. 7–

8; J.A. 69; see also Appellant’s Reply Br. 14. On appeal, 

Mr. Oliva has not identified any additional evidence 

demonstrating that he would have been offered the relocation incentive if he had been selected for the position. See 

Appellant’s Op. Br. 21. Without such evidence, for this additional reason, I would affirm the Board’s denial of damages based on lost relocation incentive pay. 

Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 06/15/2020