Opinion ID: 4540025
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motive to Retaliate

Text: With respect to the second Carr factor, the Board properly found little retaliatory motive by the agency officials involved in recommending or issuing the fitness for duty order and 10-day suspension. As an initial matter, the Board found no evidence that Mr. Castro or Mr. Eskew were beholden to Mr. Danley or “implicated directly in the disclosure.” J.A. 27. The Board relied on undisputed evidence that, at the time of Mr. Cerulli’s disclosure, his supervisors had already initiated an investigation into Mr. Danley’s December 19, 2016, statements and placed him on administrative leave. The Board further remarked that “perhaps most telling as to whether the agency retaliated against [Mr. Cerulli], there is no evidence in the record that the agency retaliated against other employees who reported Danley’s comment, including Reinhard, who was first to report his concern of the threat.” J.A. 29. Based on this evidence, the Board could not “conclude that any of the agency officials had a strong motive to retaliate.” J.A. 27. Mr. Cerulli, however, argues that his disclosures differed from that of other employees who reported Mr. Danley’s comments because his December 30 email “created a written record” that “reached several levels of his supervisory chain.” Appellant’s Br. 50. Mr. Cerulli further argues Case: 19-2022 Document: 37 Page: 11 Filed: 06/09/2020 CERULLI v. DEFENSE 11 that the repeated nature of his disclosures threatened the agency’s “ability to stifle discussion of Danley’s behavior.” Appellant’s Br. 51. However, this ignores the fact that a written record was already under development in the ongoing investigation (J.A. 359-66), and Mr. Danley’s behavior was already an active topic of discussion in the workplace. The weight to be given to the evidence of record is a “judgment call[] that rest[s] primarily within the discretion of the Board.” Koenig v. Dep’t Of Navy, 315 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Based on the record before us, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the evidence of motivation to retaliate was relatively weak. C. Treatment of Others Who Were Similarly Situated As to the third Carr factor, the Board correctly found the comparator evidence submitted by the agency weighed in the agency’s favor. With respect to the fitness for duty examination, the Board considered a comparable case, MD, who was accepted into a leadership program within the agency but was dismissed within a week. The agency recommended 5 that MD undergo a fitness for duty examination based on “unusual behaviors.” J.A. 311. Specifically, MD had told various lies, took oxycodone without a valid prescription, and admitted to having had a “mental break from reality.” Id. With respect to the 10-day suspension, the Board found EA to be comparable. EA was suspended for failing to follow instructions to provide medical documentation in connection with a fitness for duty examination to determine whether he was cleared to return to work. Similar to Mr. Cerulli’s situation, a 30-day suspension was originally 5 The agency offered for MD to undergo a fitness for duty examination but could not require him to submit due to the nature of his position. Case: 19-2022 Document: 37 Page: 12 Filed: 06/09/2020 12 CERULLI v. DEFENSE proposed, which was subsequently mitigated to 14 days. Neither MD nor EA were whistleblowers. Mr. Cerulli argues that neither MD nor EA are appropriate comparators. According to Mr. Cerulli, his concern for Mr. Danley’s behavior and desire to protect himself was reasonable whereas MD’s drug use and lying was not. However, as the Board stated in its decision, what makes MD an appropriate comparator is the fact that both MD and Mr. Cerulli “demonstrated behavior that caused an objective concern” to management regarding the “ability to perform essential functions of [the] position,” and in both situations, the agency proposed a fitness for duty examination. J.A. 28. While not a rigorous comparison, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that this comparator evidence weighs in favor of the agency. Mr. Cerulli further argues that EA is not an appropriate comparator because EA’s suspension was justified whereas his was not. Specifically, Mr. Cerulli contends that a demand for medical information must be followed whereas an unlawful order for a psychological examination need not be followed. However, as explained above, the fitness for duty order was lawful and failure to comply with it provided the agency with a legitimate reason to suspend Mr. Cerulli. We therefore find this argument unpersuasive and conclude that the Board reasonably determined EA’s circumstances to be “very similar.” J.A. 28. Mr. Cerulli also argues that the Board failed to consider a comparator that the government did not proffer: Mr. Danley. According to Mr. Cerulli, Mr. Danley “made a threat of violence,” was investigated, and was ultimately only issued a letter of warning, despite prior complaints of bullying. Appellant’s Br. 56. In contrast, Mr. Cerulli was supposedly “accused of similar misconduct” but was given a fitness for duty order and suspended without any investigation. Id. at 56-57. We disagree that Mr. Cerulli and Case: 19-2022 Document: 37 Page: 13 Filed: 06/09/2020 CERULLI v. DEFENSE 13 Mr. Danley are similarly situated. As an initial matter, we note that the nature of the “misconduct” differs. Mr. Danley was accused of a verbal threat, which management determined to be an “avoidable” incident of “perception and misunderstanding rather than an attempt . . . to intimidate an insubordinate” after investigation. J.A. 430. While expressing disappointment over his poor interpersonal skills as a manager, Mr. Danley’s supervisors did not express any concerns over his mental or emotional stability or ability to perform the essential functions of his position. Mr. Cerulli, on the other hand, acknowledged that he had armed himself with a knife, and his supervisors perceived increasing levels of emotional distress and hypervigilance that cast doubt on his ability to perform the essential functions of his position. We therefore find that the Board reasonably excluded Mr. Danley as an appropriate comparator. Based on the record, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that the agency properly established by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel actions even absent Mr. Cerulli’s protected disclosure.