Opinion ID: 771065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 Mr. Litzenberger was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration and then the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority from April 6, 1980 through May 31, 1998, and had a total of over twenty-five years of federal service. At the time of his termination he held the position of Operations Officer at Reagan National Airport. 4 The general sequence of events is undisputed. In about 1995 Mr. Litzenberger's relationship with the Airports Authority began to deteriorate, as he accused Authority officials of misconduct of various sorts, and the Authority accused Mr. Litzenberger of sexual harassment and mismanagement. In 1997 Mr. Litzenberger filed suit in Virginia state court, 1 seeking to compel the Authority to comply with an agreement reached to resolve their differences. In a jury trial, Mr. Litzenberger was denied the requested relief. 5 The Authority then terminated Mr. Litzenberger's employment, stating the reasons that he caused the Airports Authority to lose all confidence and trust in you and that he violated the Conduct and Discipline Directive. In support of the first reason, the notice of termination listed twelve examples of conduct that caused the loss of confidence and trust, almost all of which were statements about Authority managers, employees, and contractors, made by Mr. Litzenberger during his testimony at the trial in the Virginia court. For the second reason, he was charged with mak[ing] irresponsible, false, or defamatory statements which attack, without foundation, the integrity of other individuals or of an organization, in violation of the Conduct and Discipline Directive. The same examples of trial testimony were given as violations of this Directive. Mr. Litzenberger filed a grievance, but the removal action was sustained. 6 Following his removal Mr. Litzenberger applied for a discontinued service annuity, which is available to certain Civil Service Retirement System employees who are involuntarily separated, but who lack the age or length of service to qualify for an immediate retirement annuity. 5 U.S.C. 8336(d) provides that: 7 [An employee who] is separated from the service involuntarily, except by removal for cause on charges of misconduct or delinquency . . . after completing 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of age and completing 20 years of service is entitled to an annuity. 8 The Office of Personnel Management did not dispute that Mr. Litzenberger had over twenty-five years of qualifying service when he was separated, and did not dispute that his separation was involuntary. 2 9 As procedure requires, Mr. Litzenberger filed his request for an annuity with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which then forwarded it, along with the necessary records, to OPM. In its cover letter the Authority stated: 10 It is our understanding that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is charged with making the determination as to whether an applicant is eligible for an immediate annuity. By this correspondence, and submitting this form, the Authority takes no position on Mr. Litzenberger's eligibility for an annuity. We are providing factual information for you to make your own determination. 11 OPM then sent a form RI 38-49 (Correction Needed to Individual Retirement Record) to the Authority, stating The 2806 submitted does not give the reason for removal. If the removal was due to cause, please so state. The Authority's response, if any, to this inquiry is not in the record. OPM denied Mr. Litzenberger's application, stating that he had been separated from his position for cause on charges of misconduct or delinquency. 12 Mr. Litzenberger appealed to the MSPB. In affirming OPM's decision, the Board refused to consider whether Mr. Litzenberger's separation was indeed for cause on charges of misconduct or delinquency. Instead, the Board noted that OPM had concluded, from the specifications listed by the Authority in its reasons for removal, that Mr. Litzenberger's separation was for such cause, and held that the Board had no authority to review the substantive validity of these reasons. OPM stated that it had not reviewed the substantive validity of these reasons, but based its determination only on the Authority's charges of loss of confidence and trust, and violation of the Conduct Directive. Thus neither OPM nor the Board reviewed whether misconduct or delinquency was established by the statements Mr. Litzenberger made, or considered the litigation context in which he made them.