Opinion ID: 689874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Involuntary Resignation

Text: 8 The Board lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from an employee who has voluntarily resigned. Cruz v. Department of the Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, where a resignation is shown to be involuntary, the Board does have jurisdiction to hear the complaint because an involuntary resignation is deemed a constructive removal. Id. The merits and jurisdiction are inextricably intertwined in an alleged involuntary retirement case. Williams v. Department of Agriculture, 832 F.2d 1259, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, handicap discrimination is the alleged coercion which led Getchell to accept retirement. 9 A retirement request initiated by an employee is presumed to be voluntary. Schultz v. United States Navy, 810 F.2d 1133, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Christie v. United States, 518 F.2d 584, 587 (Ct. Cl. 1975)). Thus, a retiree who requests retirement has the burden of proof that his retirement is involuntary. Scharf v. Department of the Air Force, 710 F.2d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A retirement may be proved involuntary if a petitioner can demonstrate that it was obtained by agency coercion or duress. Schultz, 810 F.2d at 1136. An employee faced merely with the unpleasant alternatives of retiring or being subject to removal for inability to perform the essential duties of the position is not considered to have been subject to involuntary retirement. Id. 10 Although the Board may not review a discrimination claim apart from an adverse action, the Board may still make an initial determination on a claim of prohibited discrimination where ... that claim is asserted as the sole cause of an involuntary action, and thereby determine Board jurisdiction. Price v. United States Postal Serv., 50 M.S.P.R. 107, 110 (1991) (citing Cruz, 934 F.2d at 1247). 11 In this case, Getchell asserts that the reason for the threatened removal and for his retirement was the VA's refusal to accommodate his disability. The VA argues that this Court does not possess jurisdiction to entertain the reasonable accommodation issue. We disagree. While we do not have jurisdiction to decide the merits of Getchell's claim, we may review the Board's decision to determine a threshold question. Ballentine v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 738 F.2d 1244, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, we address solely the issue of whether the AJ applied the correct legal standard in determining involuntariness in connection with Getchell's charge that the agency failed to make a reasonable accommodation.