Opinion ID: 3159281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Wimper’s Remaining Arguments

Text: Wimper also asserts that: (1) the agency violated his due process rights by denying him an opportunity to respond to its Douglas factor analysis; and (2) the agency created a hostile work environment, which forced him to resign. Neither argument has merit. As to the first issue, the “essential requirements of due process . . . are notice and an opportunity to respond.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985). Here, Wimper was provided notice of the charges against him, and the agency gave him approximately four months to provide two separate responses to those chargWIMPER v. MSPB 15 es. During that time, the agency gave Wimper an opportunity to examine the evidence against him, and Colonel Young did not render her final decision until she reviewed and considered Wimper’s responses. Accordingly, there was no due process violation. As to the second issue, there is no evidence that Wimper asserted a hostile work environment claim below. Indeed, the AJ specifically noted that Wimper “does not allege that his resignation was the product of intolerable working conditions.” Wimper, 2014 MSPB LEXIS 7383, at . In any event, Wimper’s hostile work environment claim “fails to recognize that a removal cannot create a hostile work environment that an employee feels forced to leave from, because it necessarily forces the employee from that environment.” Respondent’s Br. 11-12.