Opinion ID: 4471463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: march 2018: fourteen day suspension

Text: In March 2018, the agency proposed to suspend Ms. Knowles for fourteen days without pay based on two charges, “failure to follow instructions” and “disruptive behavior.” With respect to the first Carr factor, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the record evidence supports the validity of the charges. J.A. 19. The 1 To the extent that Ms. Knowles is presenting the same evidence with respect to Dr. Baroudi, see the explanation in part A, supra. KNOWLES v. DVA 9 record evidence contained the March 26, 2018 suspension proposal with handwritten notes by Ms. Knowles. Id. None of Ms. Knowles’s notes denied the allegations, nor did Ms. Knowles offer testimony about the underlying conduct, as to either charge. Id. Moreover, as to the disruptive behavior charge, the record contained the email sent by Ms. Knowles to Ms. Royer, accusing Ms. Royer of altering an email originally drafted by Ms. Knowles. J.A. 18. Additionally, the Board properly credited Ms. Royer’s testimony that she feared Ms. Knowles would damage her career and she therefore raised the allegation with her supervisor. J.A. 21. As to the second Carr factor, the Board reasonably found no evidence that the proposing official or the deciding official suffered negative consequences as a result of Ms. Knowles’s protected disclosure nor other evidence suggesting the disclosure motivated their decisions. J.A. 21–22. Ms. Knowles argues that the proposing officer was placed on a “Performance Improvement Plan” (Plan) that “focused on areas that the Business Office Service Leadership Team was underperforming in.” To the extent Ms. Knowles argues that participation in the Plan was a negative consequence of her disclosures, there is no evidence in the record supporting this claim. And, as explained above, we find that the Board made appropriate credibility determinations in finding no evidence of a retaliatory motive. With respect to the third Carr factor, we agree with the Board that neither Ms. Knowles nor the government presented evidence as to a similarly situated non-whistleblower and therefore the Board appropriately only considered Carr factors one and two. 2 Thus, the Board did not err in holding that the agency properly established by 2 To the extent that Ms. Knowles is presenting the same evidence with respect to Dr. Baroudi, see the explanation in part A, supra. 10 KNOWLES v. DVA clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action even absent Ms. Knowles’s protected disclosure.