Opinion ID: 2793874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adverse Action Suits and Lack of Candor

Text: “[A]n agency must establish three things to withstand challenge to an adverse action against an employee.” Pope v. U.S. Postal Serv., 114 F.3d 1144, 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “First, it must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the charged conduct occurred. Second, the [A]gency must establish a nexus between that conduct and the efficiency of the service. Third, it must demonstrate that the penalty imposed is reasonable.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Mr. Scott only challenges the first prong of this test— that the charged conduct, lack of candor, had not occurred—when he states “there are no facts that indicate [he] knew [his] actions were unlawful.” Pet’r’s Br. 1 ¶ 2. In some cases, evidence directly establishing intent may not exist. See Naekel v. Dep’t of Transp., 782 F.2d 975, SCOTT v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 5 978 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “[C]ircumstantial evidence must generally be relied upon to establish intent.” Id. (internal citation omitted). It is “appropriate for the [B]oard to consider whether the evidence of record as a whole gave rise to an inference . . . [of the] requisite intent.” Id. III. Mr. Scott’s Lack of Candor Charge Was Supported by Substantial Evidence The Board’s finding that Mr. Scott knowingly made a false statement with the intent to deceive the dealer was supported by substantial evidence. Mr. Scott argues that although he knew Ms. “Jasmin could not purchase a firearm,” he did not know his actions were unlawful as evidenced by the fact that he “did not attempt to cover up the purchase” and the fact that he used his credit card. Pet’r’s Br. 1 ¶ 2. The facts are undisputed: Mr. Scott signed under the bold-typed statement in question 11.a, quoted above, which clearly warned the dealer could not sell the firearm to Mr. Scott if Mr. Scott was not the actual buyer. Mr. Scott admits he knew Ms. Jasmin was unable to purchase the weapon. Mr. Scott also stipulated he purchased the weapon from the dealer as part of an arrangement with Ms. Jasmin in which she would select a firearm and he would purchase it for her. The dealer testified that he would not have sold the gun to the Mr. Scott if he had known Mr. Scott was purchasing it for Ms. Jasmin. Mr. Scott certified that his answers were accurate when signing the ATF form. The ATF form explicitly states “answering ‘yes’ to question 11.a if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.” 1 Resp’t’s Br. 3 (citing Resp’t’s App. 160–162). 1 It is unlawful 6 SCOTT v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The Board certainly had substantial evidence to infer “that [Mr. Scott’s] false response to question 11.a on the ATF [f]orm . . . was made with the intent to mislead the seller as to the fact he was purchasing the gun in order to immediately transfer it to [Ms.] Jasmin.” Resp’t’s App. 28.