Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03119/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03119-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Army
Respondent
Kathleen Hansen
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KATHLEEN HANSEN,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3119

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH-0752-14-0008-I-2. 

______________________ 

Decided: October 9, 2015

______________________ 

KATHLEEN HANSEN, Whiting, NJ, pro se.

CHRISTOPHER L. HARLOW, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

CLAUDIA BURKE. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-3119 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2015
 

2 HANSEN v. ARMY

Before LOURIE, DYK, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM 

Petitioner Kathleen Hansen petitions for review of the 

March 13, 2015, decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (“Board”) affirming the Department of the Army’s 

decision to terminate her employment. See Hansen v. 

Dept. of the Army, No. PH-0752-14-0008-I-2 (M.S.P.B. 

Mar. 13, 2015) (“Final Order”). For the reasons set forth 

below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Hansen was a Contract Specialist with the Department of the Army (“Army”). On June 27, 2013, the 

Army proposed removing Ms. Hansen from her position 

due to insubordination and disrespectful conduct toward a 

supervisor. On September 13, 2013, the Army issued a 

Notice of Decision removing Ms. Hansen from her position. She appealed to the Board. After a hearing, the 

administrative judge (“AJ”) issued an initial decision 

affirming Ms. Hansen’s removal. Hansen v. Dept. of the 

Army, No. PH-0752-14-0008-I-2 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 25, 2014) 

(“Initial Decision”). Ms. Hansen filed a petition for review 

before a Board Panel. On March 13, 2015, the Board 

denied the petition and affirmed the Initial Decision. Ms. 

Hansen seeks review of the Board’s final order. 

DISCUSSION

This court’s review of Board decisions is “limited to 

whether they 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.” Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 47 

F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) 

(1988)). On review, Ms. Hansen raises several arguments. 

Case: 15-3119 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2015
HANSEN v. ARMY 3

First, Ms. Hansen asserts that the Board failed to 

consider much of the evidence she presented. The record 

shows, however, that the Board’s review of the evidence 

was thorough and complete. The Board considered the 

“content and context” of the six specifications of disrespectful conduct and one specification of insubordination. 

Final Order at 3-4. Its findings are supported by substantial evidence. 

Second, Ms. Hansen argues that the Board erred by 

failing to consider all of the Douglas factors in its analysis. In Douglas v. Veterans Administration, the Board 

established a non-exclusive list of factors to consider in 

adverse employment actions, including: the seriousness of 

the offense; whether it was intentional or frequent; the 

employee’s job level, disciplinary record, and past performance; the clarity of any warnings; and any mitigating 

circumstances raised by the employee. 5 M.S.P.B. 313, 

331-32 (1981). The Board specifically noted that the 

deciding official credibly testified that she had considered 

all of the Douglas factors. Final Order at 8. The Board 

found that the Army had properly reviewed all Douglas

factors in its removal analysis. Id. We find no error in 

the Board’s findings or conclusions. 

Third, Ms. Hansen asserts that the Board erred in 

finding that she failed to establish her affirmative defense 

of equal employment opportunity (EEO) retaliation. 

Specifically, Ms. Hansen argues that the Board incorrectly found that the deciding official did not have knowledge 

of her EEO activity prior to removing her. The Board 

explained, however, that regardless of whether the deciding official knew about Ms. Hansen’s EEO activity prior to 

removing her, Ms. Hansen failed to demonstrate a genuine nexus between her EEO activity and her removal. 

The Board found that the agency had a legitimate and 

nondiscriminatory reason for removing Ms. Hansen, and 

Ms. Hansen failed to meet her burden of proving retaliaCase: 15-3119 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2015
 

4 HANSEN v. ARMY

tion by a preponderance of the evidence. We find no error 

in the Board’s findings or conclusions. 

Finally, Ms. Hansen asserts that the Board decision 

violated her First and Fifth Amendment rights. Ms. 

Hansen claims a First Amendment right to write disrespectful emails in the workplace. We find no merit to this 

claim. As for Ms. Hansen’s Fifth Amendment claim, she 

asserts that her termination constituted “double jeopardy” 

because it was based in part on conduct for which she had 

already been disciplined. Although federal employment 

cases do not present a double jeopardy issue per se, the 

Board has held that, “[w]here an agency has imposed 

disciplinary or adverse action because of an employee’s 

misconduct, it is barred from subsequently taking another 

adverse action for the same reason.” Adamek v. U.S. 

Postal Serv., 11 M.S.P.B. 482, 483 (1982) (citations omitted). The Board considered and properly rejected this

argument, determining that there is no evidence that Ms. 

Hansen was ever disciplined twice for the same misconduct. 

We have considered Ms. Hansen’s additional arguments and find them to be without merit. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 15-3119 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/09/2015