N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

SONYA GIDDINGS,
Petitioner

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMI NISTRATION, Respondent

______________________

2020

- 1138

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. PH

- 1221

- 19

- 0122

- W

- 1.

______________________

Decided: June 1 , 2020

______________________

S ONYA G IDDINGS , Philadelphia, PA, pro se.

D ANIEL S. H ERZFELD , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by J OSEPH H.
H UNT
, A LLISON K IDD

- M ILLER
, R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN
, J R

.

______________________

Before M OORE
, T ARANTO
, and C HEN
, Circuit Judges

. Case: 20-1138 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 06/01/2020GIDDINGS v. SSA 2

P ER C URIAM

. Sonya Giddings petition s for review of a Merit Systems
Protection Board decision concluding that the Social Security Administration pr oved that it w ould not have selected Ms. Giddings for a position vacancy even in the absence of her protected activity under the Whistleblower Protection Act

. R. A. 1

– 20. 1 Because the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm

. B ACKGROUND

On Ma y 1, 2018 , Ms. Giddings applied for the position of Social Insurance Specialist (Claims Specialist) in the Mount Laurel and Trenton SSA Field Offices . R.A. 5

. On Ms. Giddings’ interview day

, the managers did not know she was in the waiting area at her scheduled interview time. R.A. 6. When district manager Keila Bragg learned that Ms. Giddings was there , she notified the interviewers, District Manager James Wallace and Assistant District
Man ager Antoinette Reilly for the Egg Harbor Field Office, and brought Ms. Gidd i ngs to the interview room. R.A. 6. Ms. Giddings was seen approximately 35 minutes late, which according to the agency was not uncommon as there were multiple interviews schedule d daily . R.A. 6. Mr. Wallace and Ms. Reilly interviewed Ms. Giddings according to the Competency Assessment Interview Process (CAIP) used for all applicants. Finding that she “ did not demonstrate the judgment, clarity, empathy, and other qualities

expec ted of a Claims Specialist, ” they rated her with scores below th e required threshold to pass the interview . R.A. 7 ; R.A. 168, 174

. Ms. Giddings had previously applied, but was not selected, for a Claims Representative position at SSA in 2014. On August 2, 2014, she filed a complaint with the O ffice of

1 Appendix citations are to Respondent’s corrected appendix, D.I. 22. Case: 20-1138 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 06/01/2020GIDDINGS v. SSA 3

S pecial C ounsel (OSC) , alleging that her former SSA supervisor, Carol Miles, committed a prohibited personnel practice by provid ing Ms. Giddings a negative reference for the Claims Representative position. R. A

. 242

– 48. The OSC found Ms. Giddings’ complaint did not present “ a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(4) or any other prohibited activity. ” See R. A

. 250. The full Board dismissed her subseque nt individual right of action ( IRA ) appeal for failure to exhaust her remedies before the OSC. R.A. 251

– 52.

In 2016 , Ms. Giddings applied for a Claims Specialist position but was not selected. R.A. 259

– 60. She filed a second OSC complaint on May 23, 2 016 alleging that SSA retaliated against her for protected activity

, filing her first OSC complaint and IR A appeal

, by not select ing her for the Claims Representative position. R. A

. 255

– 69. She filed an IRA appeal on September 21, 2016. On January 26, 2 017, an administrative judge (AJ) issued an initial decision holding that Ms. Giddings failed to demonstrate that her protected activity was a contributing factor in her non

- selection and that the agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the disclosure. R.A. 344

– 49. Ms. Giddings appealed to the full board on January 26, 20 17, and that appeal is pending.

After being informed that she was not selected for the present position, on August 23, 2018, Ms. Giddings filed a

co mplaint with the O SC alleging that SSA committed “prohibited personnel practices” by retaliat ing against her for her prior “OSC and MSPB” case in not selecting her for the Claims Specialist position. See R.A. 2 . On December 17, 2018, the OSC found that t he complaint “ lack [ ed ] sufficient evidence to establish a violation of section 2302(b)(9)” and therefore OSC had insufficient evidence to conclude that the SSA retaliated against her. R.A. 297

– 98.

On January 31, 2019, Ms. Giddings filed an IRA appeal wi th the MSPB alleging that she was not selected for a Case: 20-1138 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 06/01/2020GIDDINGS v. SSA 4

Claims Specialist position in reprisal for protected whistleblowing activity. R.A. 7. On September 30, 2019, t he administrative judge found that Ms. Giddings engaged in protected whistleblower activity when she filed complaints with the OSC on August 2, 2014 and May 23, 2016, andwhen she filed MSPB appeals on April 13, 2015 and September 21, 2016. R.A. 10. The AJ further determined that Ms. Giddings demonstrated that her protected activity was

a cont ributing factor in SSA’s decision not to select her for the position. R.A. 11. However, t he AJ determined that SSA established, by clear and convincing evidence, that itwould not have selected Ms. Giddings for the Claims Specialist position even in the absence of her protected activities under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9). R.A. 1 , 12. The decision became final on November 4, 2019

, and Ms. Giddings filed a petition for review with this court on November 12, 2019.

D ISCUSSION

We will set aside a final decision of the Board only ifthe decision is: “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, orregulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). The Board uses the following factors to determin e whether an agency has established that it would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of protected activity : (1) “the strength of the agency’s eviden ce in support of its personnel action;” (2) “the existence and strength of any motive to retaliate on the part of the agency officials who were involved in thedecision;” and (3) “any evidence that the agency takes similar actions against employees who are not whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly situated.” Carr v. Soc. Security Admin.

, 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Ms. Giddings a rgues that the Board incorrectly determined that SSA show ed that it would not have selected Ms. Giddings for the Claims Specialist position, even absent Case: 20-1138 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 06/01/2020GIDDINGS v. SSA 5

her whistleblowing activity . Petitioner Br. 3

– 5

. We hold that substantial evidence supports the Board ’s determination

. R .A. 1 2

– 19.

As to Carr factor 1

, Ms . Giddings argues that the agency did not provide clear and convincing evidence that it did not engage in whistleblowing retaliation. Petitioner
Br. 4

. She argues that Mr. Wallace and Mrs. Reilly perjured themselves by submitting declarations inconsisten t with their interview notes, and that the delay in beginning her interview was unjustified. Id. Substantial evidence supports t he Board’s finding that the agency presented sufficient evidence support ing the personnel action. R.A. 13. The agency “estab lished a detailed plan” to fill the ClaimsSpecialist position, including posting a vacancy announcement, compiling a list of applicants meeting minimumqualifications, and setting up interviews with each qualified applicant to interview 85 applica nts over one week. R.A. 13

– 14; R. A

. 71

– 72

. Mr. Wallace and Ms. Reilly provided declarations that they followed the CAIP in interviewing Ms. Giddings

. R.A. 168, 174. They stated that they rated Ms. Giddings with scores below the threshold because , among other reasons, her answers were “ at times incomplete and off topic ” and she “ did not demonstrate the judgment, clarity, empathy, and other qualities expected of a Claims Specialist. ” R.A. 168, 174; R.A. 15

– 17. Therefore,Ms. Giddings did not pass the interview and was not eligible for the position.

As to Carr Factor 2, Ms. Giddings asserts that the agency had a motive to retaliate due to the multiple MSPB and OSC complaints she has filed. Petitioner Br. 4. Shecontends she sent mass emails to multiple officials informing them of her complaints. Substantial evidence supports

t he Board’s decision that Ms. Bragg, Mr. Wallace, and Ms. Reilly lacked a motive to retaliate against Ms . Giddings. R.A. 18

– 19. There is no evidence that Mr. Wallace or Ms. Reilly had a retaliatory motive as neither was involved in any prior appeals or complaints

, and no appeals or Case: 20-1138 Document: 26 Page: 5 Filed: 06/01/2020GIDDINGS v. SSA 6

complaints were considered in her interview evaluation. R.A. 171

– 72, 177. Even though Ms. Bragg provided a declaration in Ms. Giddings’ MSPB appeal, Ms. Bragg also included Ms. Giddings as an applicant to be interviewed and requested that Ms. Giddings ’ interview be scheduled

. R.A.
105

– 06. Ms. Giddings blames Ms. Bragg for her late interview start time, but it was not unusual for interviews to be late. R.A. 186. And when Ms. Bragg learned of Ms. Giddings arrival, she notified the interviewers and Ms. Giddings was escorted to her interview.

As to Carr Factor 3, Ms. Giddings argues that the Board erred because none of the selected applicants were known whistleblowers. Petitioner Br. 4. But this factor considers whether the agency “ takes similar actions against employees who are not whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly situated .” Non

- whistleblower applicants who failed the interviews were also not selected. R.A. 73. Forty applicants passed and eighty four applicants failed. R.A. 73. Therefore, the Board’s finding that Ms. Giddings was tr eated similarly to other applicants not engaged in protected activity was supported by substantial evidence.

C ONCLUSION

The Board’s determination that the SSA would not have selected Ms. Giddings for the position even absent protected activity was supported by substantial evidence. See R.A. 19

– 20. We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unpersuas ive. Accordingly, we affirm

. AFFIRMED Case: 20-1138 Document: 26 Page: 6 Filed: 06/01/2020