NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TERESA BORZA,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Respondent

______________________

2018-1873

______________________

Petition for review of an arbitrator's decision in No. 

171202-51398-1 by Robert B. Lubic.

______________________

Decided: May 29, 2019

______________________

RUSHAB SANGHVI, Office of General Counsel, American 

Federation of Government Employees, Washington, DC, 

argued for petitioner. 

 ADAM E. LYONS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

JOSEPH H. HUNT, REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

______________________
2 BORZA v. COMMERCE

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge.

Teresa L. Borza petitions for review of an arbitrator’s 

decision imposing a 561-day suspension. Because the arbitrator failed to justify the length of suspension, we vacatein-part the arbitrator’s decision and remand for further 

consideration.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Borza began working at the U.S. Census Bureau in 

1998, initially as a typist and then as a Management Analyst. On December 15, 2013, the U.S. Office of the Inspector General received an anonymous complaint that several 

employees, including Ms. Borza, were regularly claiming 

time and receiving pay for hours they had not worked. 

Consequently, in February 2014, the Census Bureau initiated an investigation into the matter. It determined that 

Ms. Borza received pay for more than 900 hours of unperformed work beginning on January 4, 2010, and amounting 

to about $40,000 in gross income. 

Accordingly, Ms. Borza was placed on administrative 

leave in May 2015, then terminated, effective September 9, 

2016. Although her union filed a grievance challenging the 

termination, the agency ultimately decided to maintain its 

position. Thus, Ms. Borza, through her union, requested 

arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement. 

An arbitrator heard Ms. Borza’s case on November 9, 

2018, and issued an opinion granting Borza’s grievance on 

February 22, 2018. See generally, J.A. 1–36 (Arbitrator’s 

Decision). Based on his analysis of the factors set forth in 

Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 303–

08 (1981), used to determine the appropriate penalty for an 

employee’s conduct, the arbitrator concluded that remedy 

of removal was too severe. Specifically, he reasoned that 

although “the penalty of dismissal [was] within the 
BORZA v. COMMERCE 3

tolerable limits of reasonableness,” J.A. 31, it should be 

mitigated “in light of Borza’s past 17-year record.” J.A. 34. 

Because Ms. Borza’s record reflects “no other disciplinary 

charges, advancement from the position of typist to management analyst, numerous awards and commendations, 

and performance of her duties in a positive manner after 

receiving her first notice of proposed removal (proving the 

potential of rehabilitation),” the arbitrator concluded that 

“the adverse action of her removal from Federal service is 

too severe under the circumstances and does not actually 

promote the efficiency of the service.” J.A. 34–35. 

The arbitrator next concluded that “the disciplinary action of extended suspension, . . . based upon the entire 

record in this matter, appears as reasonable punishment.” 

J.A. 35. He ordered that “[w]ithin thirty days from the date 

of []his decision, [Ms. Borza] may return to her position . . . 

[or] she may resign . . . without any accrued benefits during her absence.” J.A. 36. The arbitrator noted, however, 

that if she neither returned to work nor resigned during 

the specific set period, the charge of dismissal would stand. 

Id. Ms. Borza returned to her position effective March 24, 

2018, concluding a 561-day suspension. She subsequently 

retired before filing this appeal on April 20, 2018. Oral 

Arg. at 10:18–37, No. 2018-1873, http://www.cafc.uscourts.

gov/oral-argument-recordings.

On appeal, we review the arbitrator’s decision “in the 

same manner and under the same conditions as if the matter had been decided by the [Merit Systems Protection] 

Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7121(f). Further, we will uphold the arbitrator’s decision unless 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). 
4 BORZA v. COMMERCE

DISCUSSION

This appeal concerns whether the arbitrator imposed a 

time-served suspension solely based on the time elapsed 

between Ms. Borza’s removal and her reinstatement.1 Our 

decision in Greenstreet v. Social Security Administration, 

543 F.3d 705 (Fed. Cir. 2008) controls our decision here. 

A

In all legally-relevant respects, the facts of Greenstreet

are virtually indistinguishable from the facts of this case. 

Mr. Greenstreet, an IT specialist for the Social Security Administration, damaged a computer and other office equipment in an isolated outburst. Greenstreet, 543 F.3d at 706. 

As a result, Mr. Greenstreet was placed on administrative 

leave and then terminated. Mr. Greenstreet’s union subsequently filed a grievance challenging the termination 

and invoked the arbitration clause of its collective bargaining agreement. Id. The arbitrator issued his decision 

roughly three months after hearing the case, concluding

that Mr. Greenstreet’s termination was unreasonable in 

view of the Douglas factors and ordering that Mr. Greenstreet be immediately reinstated. Id.

On appeal, this court concluded that “[b]y mitigating 

Greenstreet’s termination to reinstatement without backpay, the arbitrator effectively converted Greenstreet’s penalty to a suspension without pay for 342 days.” Id. at 707. 

The court then held that “the length of a suspension is arbitrary when it is based solely on the suspended employee’s 

‘time served’ awaiting decision.” Id. at 709. We therefore 

vacated the arbitrator’s decision and remanded for 

 

1 Neither party has asserted that the arbitrator 

erred by concluding suspension, rather than termination, 

was the appropriate remedy.
BORZA v. COMMERCE 5

consideration of the appropriate length of suspension based 

on the Douglas factors. Id. at 710.

B

The government attempts to distinguish this case from 

Greenstreet. It argues that unlike the arbitrator in Greenstreet, here, the arbitrator actually performed a Douglas

factor analysis to determine that extended suspension was 

a reasonable punishment for the misconduct. For support, 

the government focuses on the portion of the arbitrator’s 

decision that addresses the Douglas factors and then states

that “[i]n view of the foregoing, the disciplinary action of 

extended suspension, . . . based on the entire record in this 

matter, appears to be reasonable punishment.” J.A. 35 

(emphases added). 

We agree with the government that the arbitrator applied the Douglas factors to determine that suspension (as 

opposed to termination) was the appropriate penalty. But

Greenstreet requires more. To be sure, Greenstreet dictates 

that the arbitrator must also provide a reasoned and principled analysis as to the appropriate length of that suspension. 543 F.3d at 710. The arbitrator’s analysis in this case 

undeniably falls short of this requirement.

That said, the government’s argument that Ms. Borza’s 

561-day suspension is commensurate with the penalty applicable to an employee who received an overpayment of 

900 hours for time she claimed but did not work on at least 

564 different occasions, carries some force. As the government noted, “the arbitrator may come back, and he may 

say, ‘she stole time on 564 occasions, leading to 900 hours, 

I think the penalty of one day per occasion is appropriate’ . . . so we may end up right were we are with the exact 

same suspension.” Oral Arg. at 12:28–42. Moreover, as we 

have said previously, our holding in Greenstreet “should not 

be read to foreclose a reasoned decision of suspension based 

on a proper application of the Douglas factors simply 
6 BORZA v. COMMERCE

because it may be coincident with or nearly coincident with 

‘time served.’” Greenstreet, 543 F.3d at 710. 

In this case, however, a gap exists in the arbitrator’s 

reasoning, and it should not be minimized. Simply concluding, without explanation, that 561 days is the appropriate length for Ms. Borza’s suspension is inadequate.

She is entitled to know why.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the arbitrator’s decision that suspension, rather than termination, is the appropriate remedy for Ms. Borza’s misconduct. We vacate, 

however, the arbitrator’s decision in all other respects and

remand for a principled analysis of the appropriate length 

of Ms. Borza’s suspension. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED-IN-PART

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.