Opinion ID: 4512195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Keys’ Second MSPB Appeal

Text: On November 20, 2018, Keys filed an Individual Right of Action (“IRA”) appeal with the MSPB. Keys I, 2019 MSPB LEXIS 3462, at . Keys alleged that the agency Case: 20-1063 Document: 26 Page: 5 Filed: 03/03/2020 KEYS v. MSPB 5 document revealed that the agency reassigned him to a new supervisor, division, and location as reprisal for his whistleblowing activities. S.A. 29. Keys also asked the Board to reverse its decision in the first MSPB appeal, seeking a reinstatement in his original position at the agency with backpay and interest. Id. Keys submitted supplemental documentation in support of his appeal, including excerpts from his January 2015 district court brief; the agency document that allegedly showed that the basis of his reassignment was fraudulent; a copy of his collective bargaining agreement; and correspondence related to his 2015 EEO Report of Investigation, which included the agency document. S.A. 37–55. On November 27, 2018, the AJ issued a Jurisdiction Order, which required the petitioner to submit a statement demonstrating that the Board had jurisdiction over his appeal. S.A. 56–65. The Jurisdiction Order explained: To establish Board jurisdiction over an IRA appeal, you must show that you exhausted your adminis- trative remedies before the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and make nonfrivolous allegations that: (1) you engaged in whistleblowing activity by making a protected disclosure, or engaged in other protected activity as specified below; and (2) the disclosure or activity was a contributing factor in the agency’s decision to take or fail to take one of the personnel actions listed at 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a). S.A. 57. The Jurisdiction Order explained that the AJ would only review “those alleged disclosures and personnel actions that were specifically raised to and exhausted at OSC.” S.A. 57. The AJ ordered Keys to file a statement identifying, among other items, his alleged protected disclosures and the accused personnel actions. S.A. 63 (“(A) Protect Disclosures and/or Activities: list your protected disclosure(s) or activity(ies); . . . (E) Personnel Actions: list every action the agency took or failed to take, or threatened Case: 20-1063 Document: 26 Page: 6 Filed: 03/03/2020 6 KEYS v. MSPB to take or failed to take, against you because of your disclosure(s) or activity(ies).”). In response, Keys submitted a “Statement in Support of MSPB Jurisdiction,” alleging that he had made two protected disclosures: (1) his statement in his January 2015 district court brief, alleging that certain agency officials lied under oath; and (2) his July 2018 complaint to OSC that the agency did not have an approved vacancy to which he could be assigned in 2015, and that the agency failed to disclose this information to the Board in the first MSPB appeal. S.A. 66. With respect to the personnel actions on appeal, Keys’ jurisdictional statement only identified the February 2015 reassignment. S.A. 66. Keys, however, had attached the November 2018 communication from OSC, which stated that Keys “contend[s] that the reassignment coerced [his] resignation in retaliation for [his] disclosures about agency officials lying in litigation.” Keys I, 2019 MSPB LEXIS 3462, at –5. The AJ interpreted this additional document as a suggestion that there were two personnel actions at issue: (1) Keys’ reassignment and (2) Keys’ constructive removal. Id. at –6. On December 21, 2018, the agency filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. S.A. 71. With respect to Keys’ constructive removal claim, the agency argued that the claim was barred by collateral estoppel based on the Board’s decision in the first MSPB appeal. S.A. 75–77. With respect to Keys’ reassignment claim, the agency argued that Keys failed to establish MSPB jurisdiction because he failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that he made a protected disclosure or that his alleged protected disclosures were a contributing factor to his reassignment. S.A. 79–82, S.A. 85–87. The agency also argued that Keys failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for his appeal because he did not prove that he provided specific details to OSC about his alleged protected disclosures. S.A. 77– 79. In response, Keys argued that collateral estoppel should not apply to his constructive discharge claim Case: 20-1063 Document: 26 Page: 7 Filed: 03/03/2020 KEYS v. MSPB 7 because the issue on appeal was not related to his alleged involuntary resignation. S.A. 117–118. Keys also insisted that there was no deficiency regarding his protected disclosures because he “provided all information to OSC,” including the “date of the disclosure, court in which [the] disclosure was filed, [and] a copy of the brief.” S.A. 118– 119. Finally, Keys argued that he appropriately exhausted all administrative remedies because “[OSC] never sent a reply stating they did not have sufficient information to investigate.” S.A. 119. On September 13, 2019, the AJ issued an initial decision dismissing Keys’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. First, the AJ held that Keys failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he exhausted his administrative remedies for his two alleged protective disclosures before OSC. Keys I, 2019 MSPB LEXIS 3462, at –13. The AJ explained that, with respect to Keys’ first protected disclosure (alleging that agency officials made false statements under oath), Keys failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that he provided OSC with sufficient information to pursue an investigation. Id. at –12. With respect to Keys’ second protected disclosure (alleging in his July 2018 OSC complaint that the agency did not have an approved vacancy to which he could be reassigned in 2015), the AJ determined that Keys did not exhaust his remedy because he did not file any subsequent complaints alleging that the agency took personnel actions against him based on his July 2018 complaint. Id. at . 1 1 The AJ also determined that, to the extent Keys alleged that the reassignment was in retaliation for his July 2018 OSC complaint , Keys could not establish that the protected disclosure was a “contributory factor” because the disclosure occurred more than three years after the alleged retaliatory activity. Id. at –13. Case: 20-1063 Document: 26 Page: 8 Filed: 03/03/2020 8 KEYS v. MSPB The AJ then determined that, even if Keys could demonstrate exhaustion of remedies based on his first protected disclosure, the Board still lacked jurisdiction. The AJ found that Keys’ constructive removal claim was barred by collateral estoppel because the Board in the first MSPB appeal had already considered whether Keys voluntarily resigned. Id. at –17. The AJ also concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction because Keys had not non-frivolously alleged that his protected disclosure was a “contributing factor” in the agency’s reassignment decision. Id. at –19. Keys had claimed that Mr. Bregón knew about his disclosure because Mr. Bregón’s position would have made him aware of “any new issues” in EEO cases. Id. at . But the AJ determined that this claim was “insufficient to demonstrate a nonfrivolous allegation of actual knowledge.” Id. at –20. Accordingly, based on her findings that Keys (1) failed to prove that he exhausted his administrative remedies; (2) was barred by collateral estoppel from litigating his constructive removal claim; and (3) failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that his disclosure was a contributing factor to his reassignment, the AJ dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at –22. Keys did not petition the Board to review the AJ’s initial decision and it became the final decision of the Board. Keys timely appealed to this court, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).