Opinion ID: 211555
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Absent evidence to the contrary, a retirement is presumed to be voluntary and is beyond the Board’s jurisdiction. See Covington v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 750 F.2d 937, 941 (Fed. Cir. 1984). To establish Board jurisdiction, an appellant must overcome the presumption of voluntariness by making a non-frivolous allegation that the resignation was the result of misinformation, deception, or coercion by the agency. Dick v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 290 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The test for involuntariness is an objective one; it is not measured by the appellant’s subjective 05-3270 3 evaluation of his or her situation. Middleton v. Dep’t of Def., 185 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Involuntariness may be established by a showing that an appellant’s working conditions were made so intolerable that a reasonable person in the appellant’s position would have felt compelled to resign. Id. On appeal, Stephens alleges that she was harassed by her supervisor and that the agency took no action in response. Among other contentions, Stephens alleges that she was ignored at staff meetings, denied use of voice-mail, denied reasonable accommodation for her allergies, and was not supported in her work efforts. The AJ appropriately considered all of Stephens’ arguments regarding coercion and harassment in the workplace, ultimately concluding that she failed to show that “a reasonable person in her position would have believed that she had no other option but to retire.” Initial Decision at 7. Moreover, the AJ stated that the evidence of the record indicated that “[she] had contemplated retirement over a period in excess of five months and that [she] had accepted $25,000 incentive payment regarding her decision to retire.” Id. at 6. We discern no error in the Board’s decision. We agree that, even if Stephens’ allegations are taken as true, she has failed to show that the working conditions of her employment were made so intolerable that a reasonable person in her position would have felt compelled to retire. See Staats v. United States Postal Serv., 99 F.3d 1120, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (explaining that “the fact that an employee is faced with an unpleasant situation or that his choice is limited to two unattractive options does not make the employee’s decision any less voluntary”). Moreover, as the AJ found, Stephens made a reasoned decision to accept a $25,000 incentive to retire. Under 05-3270 4 these circumstances, the AJ properly concluded that “[a]lthough appellant may regret that decision now, appellant’s choice does not equate to coercion.” Thus, as the Board found, none of Stephens’ allegations can sustain her claim that her retirement from the agency was involuntary. Initial Decision at 6. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board dismissing Stephens’ appeal for lack of jursidiction is affirmed. 05-3270 5