N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ENR IC O F. LUC C HETTI,

Pe t i tione r, v. U.S. DEPAR T M ENT OF THE INTER IOR , R e sponde nt. No. 17-71081 M SPB No. SF-1221-16-0091-W -3
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the M e rits Sy ste m s Prote c tion B oa rd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 11, 2018 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c K EOW

N, W . FLETC HER , a

nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Enric o Luc c he tti c ha lle nge s the de c ision of theM e rit Sy ste m s Prote c tion B oa rd (“ B oa rd” ) de ny i ng his re que st for c orre c tive a c tion unde r the Whistleblowe r Prote c tion Ac t

(“ W PA” ), 5 U.S.C . § 2302(b)(8). Luc c he tti c la im s he wa s 

# F IL ED NOV 05 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).dism isse d during his proba tiona ry pe riod a s a

m a inte n an c e worke r be c a use of his disc losure s a

bout unsa fe e ntrie s into c onfine d spa c e s, in viola tion of 29 C .F.R
. § 1910.146. The

De pa rtm e nt of the Inte rior (“ DOI” ) re sponds tha t Luc c he tti wa s inste a d te rm inate d be c a

use of unprofe ssiona l c onduc t an d una uthoriz e d use of gove rnm e nt buildings. The B oa rd rule d tha

t Luc c he tti m a de out a

prim a fa c i e c a se of whistleblowe r re ta lia tion, but tha

t DOI c arrie d its burde n of e sta blishing “ by c le ar and c o nvinc ing
e vide nc e tha

t it would ha

ve take n the sa

m e [a dve rse ] pe rsonne l a c tion” a ga inst Luc c he tti a

bse nt his prote c te d disc losure s . 5 U.S.C . § 1221(e )(2); se e Mille r v . De p’t of J ustic e , 842 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fe d . C ir. 2016). W e have jurisdic tion to
re vie w the B oa

rd’ s de c ision under 5 U.S.C . § 7703(b)(1)(B ) and we a ffirm
. W e m u st se t a side a

de c ision of theB oa

rd if it is “ (1) arbitra

ry , c a p ric ious,
an a b use of disc re tion, or otherwise not in a c c orda n c e with la

w; (2) obta ine d without proc e d

ure s re quire d by

la w, rule , or re gula

tion ha ving be e n followe d; or (3) unsupporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .” 5 U.S.C . § 7703(c ); Duggan v . De p’t of De fe nse , 883 F.3d 842, 843 (9th C ir. 2018). It is not this c ourt’ s “ func tion” to

“ re try [] fa c tua l issue s de c i de d . . . by the B oa rd.” Se e Brile

y v . N a t ’l Arc hiv e

s & Re c ords Admin. , 236 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fe d. C i r. 2001).

2Whe n e xam ining whe the r an a ge nc y ha s c arrie d its burde n of proving inde pe nde nt c a

usation, we be gin with the C arr fa c tors. Se e Duggan , 883 F.3d a t 846. The thre e none xc lusive C arr fa c tors a re : “ [1] the stre ngth of thea g e nc y ’ s e vide nc e in support of its pe rsonne l a c tion; [2] the e x iste nc e and stre ngth of a ny m otive to re ta lia

te on the pa

rt of the a ge nc y

offic ia ls who we re involve d in the de c ision; a

nd [3] any

e vide nc e tha

t the a g e nc y

ta ke s sim ila r a c tions a g a inst
e m ploy e e s who a

re not whistle

blowe rs but who a

re othe rwise sim ila

rly situa te d.” C arr v . Soc ial Se c . Admin. , 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fe d. C i r. 1999)
. On the first C

arr fa c t or, the B oa

rd’ s c o nc lusion tha

t DOI pre se nte d “ strong”
e vide nc e in support of the de c ision to term inat e Luc c he tti is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The B oa

rd c o rre c t ly

note d tha t Luc c he tti did not de

ny the

“ e s se ntia l fa c ts” of the sta te d grounds for his rem o va l. The B oa rd furthe r found Luc c he tti’ s “ a sse rtion tha t m ana ge m e nt ne v e r brought to his a tte ntion the ir
c onc e rns a

bout his la

ngua ge and c onduc t” wa s “ dire c tly c ontra dic te d by [his supe rvisors’ ] te stim ony

and by the writte n re c ord.” Whe re , a s he re , the B oa rd

“ ba se d its de c i sion on the te stim ony

of a ge nc y

offic i a ls,” its “ c re dibility de te rm i nations . . . a

re ‘ virtua lly

unre vie wa

ble ’ ” on a ppe a l. W atson v . De

p’t of J ustic e , 64 F.3d 1524, 1531 (Fe d. C ir. 1995).

3Luc c he tti fa ults theB oa

rd for fa iling to disc

uss the c anc e lla

tion of his
a pplic ation for a va c ant plum be r position. B ut the e vide nc e pre se nte d to theB oa rd
a bout why Luc c he tti wa s not offe re d the position— c o nc e rns a

b out his la

ngua ge and c onduc t— i s the sa

m e e vide nc e the B o ard c re dite d in finding the re we re va lid grounds for Luc c he tt i’ s re m ova l. The B o ard the re fore did not “m anife stly ignore [] ” “ c onside ra

ble c ounte rva iling e vide nc e ” whe n it de c line d to disc uss the plum be r position. Se e W

hitmore v . De p’t of Labor , 680 F.3d 1353, 1368 (Fe d. C ir. 2012). On the se c ond C

arr fa c tor, though this c ourt would ha ve be e n a ide d by

a m ore de ta ile d disc ussion from the B oa rd, we find substa

ntia l e vide nc e to support the B oa rd’ s c onc lusion tha

t the re wa s “ s c ant e vide nc e ” of a re ta lia tory m otive by those involve d in thede c ision to term inat e Luc c he tti. The re is no e vide n c e tha t
m ana ge m e nt wa s a

w are of the OSHA c om

pla int file d by

the union on c onfine d spa c e issue s whe n Luc c he tti wa s dism i sse d. R e g arding Luc c h e tti’ s e arlie r inte rna l
c om pla i nts, the re is e vide nc e tha t m ana ge m e nt wa s re c e p tive to the se c onc e rns. Eve n the OSHA notic e re c ogniz e d the a ge nc y ’ s “ good fa ith” e fforts to provide tra ining a nd did not “ invoke viola

tions” for tha

t re a son. W e note tha

t, c ontra ry to Luc c he tti’ s argum e nts, them otive s of one of his
c o-worke rs in m aking c om pla ints a bout Luc c he tti a

re not re le va

nt to the se c ond
4C

arr fa c t or ana ly s is. The B oa rd’ s inquiry

is a bout whe the r the de c ision-mak e rs ha d a n ulte rior m otive
. Se e C

arr , 185 F.3d a

t 1326 (finding no W

PA viola tion whe re the de c ision m ake rs “ we re not m otiva te d to re ta lia

te ,” e v e n if the y “ a c te d on inform at ion tha

t c a m e to the m

from . . . e m ploy e e s who we re ” ). On the third C

arr fa c tor, the B o ard did not e rr in finding tha t DOI c arrie d its burde n e ve n though it did not pre se nt e vide nc e a bout simila

rly situa te d nonwhistleblowe rs. Though a bse nc e of e vide nc e on the third C a rr fa c tor c an c ut
a ga inst thea g e nc y

whe re it withholds re le va n t inform ation, a la c k of sim ila rly situa te d non-whistle

blowe rs c an

a lso “ e ffe c tive ly

re m ove tha

t fa c tor from

the
ana ly sis.” W

hitmore , 680 F.3d a

t 1374; se e also Duggan , 883 F.3d a t 847 (holding that , in the a

b se nc e of e vide n c e , the third C a rr fa c tor “pla

y s no role in our
ana ly sis” ). Luc c he tti a gre e s tha t a “ sim ila rly situa te d” e m ploy e e in this c a se would be a “ probationa

ry e m ploy e e with a

good work re c ord.” The B oa rd c orre c t ly found the re we re no suc h e m ploy e e s. The B oa rd a lso a c c ura te ly

note d tha t “ no a c tion wha

tsoe ve r wa s ta

k e n by the
a ge nc y a ga inst . . . a

ny o n e e lse who c om

pla ine d a bout its failure to follow pe rtine nt re gula

tions re ga rding c onfine d spa c e s.” The third C arr fa c tor, by

its te rm s, doe s not instruc t the B oa rd to c onside r whe the r othe r whistleblowe rs fa c e d

5a dve rse pe rsonne l a c tions. Se e C arr , 185 F.3d a

t 1323. Howe ve r, like the B oa rd,
we find suc h e vide nc e to be instruc tive
. The C arr fa c tors a

nd the re c ord m

ust be c onside re d “ a s a

whole .” Duggan , 883 F.3d a

t 847. TheB oa

rd c onc lude d tha

t the first two C

arr fa c tors we igh in favor of DOI a

nd tha t the third fa c tor we ighs, if a t a ll, a lso in DOI’ s favor. The
re c o rd a s a

whole provide s substa

ntia l e vide nc e to support the B oa rd’ s c onc lusions. AFFIRM E D.

6