Opinion ID: 4512195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Keys’ Constructive Removal Claim

Text: is Barred by Collateral Estoppel To the extent that Keys argues that his alleged constructive removal is a personnel action at issue, we agree with the Board that the claim is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. 2 We have previously held that the Board may give collateral estoppel effect to prior decisions in appropriate circumstances. See, e.g., Mercer v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 4 Fed. Appx. 888, 891 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Mintzmyer v. Dep’t of the Interior, 84 F.3d 419, 423 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Collateral estoppel applies when: (1) the issue in the prior proceeding is identical to the one now presented; (2) the issue was actually adjudicated in the prior case; (3) the determination of the issue was necessary to the resulting judgment; and (4) the party precluded was fully represented in the prior action. Mintzmyer, 84 F.3d at 423. Keys unsuccessfully litigated the same constructive removal issue in the first MSPB appeal. S.A. 89–93. The Board considered whether Keys’ resignation was actually voluntary, and its ultimate determination was the primary reason for the dismissal of the prior appeal. Id. Neither party disputes that Keys was fully represented in the prior action. Accordingly, we agree that collateral estoppel precludes Keys from again disputing whether his resignation was voluntary. 2 It is not clear, however, whether Keys disputes the collateral estoppel finding with respect to his constructive removal claim. In fact, Keys seems to argue that the only issues filed with OSC in July 2018 related to “the illegal reassignment effective [sic] by [the] agency [as] a reprisal.” Appellant Resp. to AJ Findings ¶ 14. Case: 20-1063 Document: 26 Page: 10 Filed: 03/03/2020 10 KEYS v. MSPB