Court Opinion

ID: 9909731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 22:00:31.877257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:19.245476
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     TONIA LEE HARDYWAY,                             DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-0752-17-0695-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: December 12, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jeffrey H. Jacobson , Esquire, Tucson, Arizona, for the appellant.

           Lois F. Prince and Kathleen Pohlid , Esquire, Nashville, Tennessee, for the
             agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The agency has timely filed a petition for review of the initial decision,
     which reversed the appellant’s reduction in grade and pay under 5 U.S.C.
     chapter 75. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
     circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
     the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation
     1
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
     but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
     required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
     precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                         2

     or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative
     judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision
     were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion,
     and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material
     evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due
     diligence, was not available when the record closed.        Title 5 of the Code of
     Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).             After fully
     considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not
     established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
     Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision,
     which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
¶2         The appellant was formerly a Supervisory Social Worker, Assistant Chief of
     Social Work Services, in the Social Work Service branch of the Veterans
     Administration Tennessee Valley Health Care System. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 43 at 42; Hearing Transcript, Vol. III at 144, 146 (testimony of the
     appellant). The Assistant Chief position is located in the Office of the Chief of
     Social Work Service, which oversees ten different programs, including the
     Community Based Care Program (CBCP). IAF, Tab 16 at 62, Tab 17 at 5.
¶3         Effective July 23, 2017, the agency reduced the appellant in grade and pay
     from her Assistant Chief of Social Work Service position to a nonsupervisory
     position based on a charge of “Failure to Provide Adequate Program Oversight”
     over the CBCP.     IAF, Tab 16 at 18-60.      The appellant filed a Board appeal,
     challenging the merits of the agency’s action on the basis that she was not
     responsible for CBCP oversight and raising affirmative defenses of harmful
     procedural error and retaliation for equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity.
     IAF, Tab 1, Tab 91 at 1-5. After a hearing, the administrative judge issued an
     initial decision reversing the action based on the agency’s failure to prove that the
     appellant was assigned responsibility over the CBCP program. IAF, Tab 123,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 4-9. The administrative judge found that the appellant
                                                                                     3

     failed to prove her affirmative defense of EEO retaliation, and, because she had
     reversed the agency’s action on the merits, she declined to adjudicate the
     appellant’s harmful error defense. ID at 9-10.
¶4        The agency has filed a petition for review, challenging the administrative
     judge’s findings about the scope of the appellant’s responsibilities as Assistant
     Chief. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The appellant has filed a response
     to the petition for review, and the agency has filed a reply to the appellant’s
     response. PFR File, Tabs 7, 11.
¶5        We have considered the agency’s arguments on review that the
     administrative judge misconstrued the charge, applied an incorrect evidentiary
     standard, and ignored certain evidence in reaching her decision. PFR File, Tab 1
     at 14-16, 19-20. We find these arguments to be unpersuasive and unsupported by
     the record.    It appears to us that the agency is actually contesting the
     administrative judge’s weighing and evaluation of the evidence.
¶6        In her initial decision, the administrative judge relied in part on the
     testimony of the appellant’s former supervisor, the Chief of Social Work Service,
     who testified that she never assigned the appellant to oversee the CBCP. ID at 5;
     Hearing Transcript, Vol. II at 115-16 (testimony of the Chief).            While
     acknowledging the deference owed to the administrative judge’s assessment of
     the Chief’s credibility, see Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1301
     (Fed. Cir. 2002), the agency argues that there are sufficiently sound reasons for
     the Board to overturn that credibility determination. PFR File, Tab 1 at 18-19.
     We disagree.   The Chief’s testimony was corroborated by the CBCP program
     manager, who testified that the CBCP was not part of the appellant’s
     responsibility. ID at 7-8; Hearing Transcript, Vol. I at 181-83 (testimony of the
     CBCP program manager).        The administrative judge also found the Chief’s
     testimony compelling because she made a statement against interest by taking
     responsibility for the shortcomings in CBCP oversight, rather than shifting the
     blame to the appellant, and had in fact been removed because of her lack of
                                                                                           4

     oversight.   ID at 5 n.8.   We see no basis for setting aside the administrative
     judge’s well-reasoned credibility determinations.
¶7         Finally, in analyzing the appellant’s defense of EEO retaliation, the
     administrative judge applied the standard applicable in general retaliation claims
     set forth in Warren v. Department of the Army, 804 F.2d 654, 656-58 (Fed. Cir.
     1986), rather than the standard applicable in EEO retaliation claims. After the
     initial decision was issued, the Board clarified the analytical framework for
     addressing EEO retaliation claims.           Claims of retaliation for opposing
     discrimination in violation of Title VII are analyzed under the same framework
     used for Title VII discrimination claims, namely, that the appellant bears the
     initial burden of proving by preponderant evidence that her protected EEO
     activity was a motivating factor in her reduction in grade and pay. Pridgen v.
     Office of Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 30. It is undisputed that the
     appellant engaged in EEO activity protected under Title VII. IAF, Tab 45 at 6.
     The administrative judge found, however, that the appellant introduced little
     evidence of retaliation other than the fact of her complaint.         ID at 9-10.    In
     addition, the administrative judge found that the agency’s action was the result of
     an investigation that discovered serious problems in the CBCP. ID at 10. The
     appellant does not dispute these findings on review. Therefore, we find that the
     appellant has not shown that her EEO activity was a motivating factor in the
     agency’s decision to demote her. 2

                                            ORDER
¶8         We ORDER the agency to cancel the appellant's reduction in grade and pay
     and reinstate her to the position of Assistant Chief of Social Work Services
     effective July 27, 2017. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts , 726 F.2d

     2
       Because we discern no error with the administrative judge’s motivating factor
     conclusions regarding the appellant’s retaliation claim, it is unnecessary for us to
     address whether retaliation was a “but-for” cause of the reduction in grade and pay. See
     Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 20-25.
                                                                                          5

      730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no later than 20 days
      after the date of this decision.
¶9          We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back
      pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel
      Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this
      decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s
      efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to
      provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the
      Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due,
      and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed
      amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision.
¶10         We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing
      when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has
      taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask
      the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶11         No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully
      carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement
      with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant
      believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition
      should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not
      fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of
      any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
¶12         For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
      Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and
      Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation
      necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision
      are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all
      documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the
                                                                                      6

Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be
made within the 60-day period set forth above.

                 NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                       YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                      ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
      You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at Title 5 of
the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
the initial decision on your appeal.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file.            5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction.   If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

3
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                         7

      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.                5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit   your   petition    to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review    of   cases      involving   a   claim      of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
                                                                                  8

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.    5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security.        See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                                                                                      9

                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                 131 M Street, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant     to   the    Whistleblower      Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section
2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i),
(B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 4   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).

4
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                10

      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                             U.S. Court of Appeals
                             for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD:                        ______________________________
                                      Jennifer Everling
                                      Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
                                  DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
                                            Civilian Pay Operations

                          DFAS BACK PAY CHECKLIST
The following documentation is required by DFAS Civilian Pay to compute and pay back pay
pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805. Human resources/local payroll offices should use the following
checklist to ensure a request for payment of back pay is complete. Missing documentation may
substantially delay the processing of a back pay award. More information may be found at:
https://wss.apan.org/public/DFASPayroll/Back%20Pay%20Process/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NOTE: Attorneys’ fees or other non-wage payments (such as damages) are paid by
vendor pay, not DFAS Civilian Pay.

☐ 1) Submit a “SETTLEMENT INQUIRY - Submission” Remedy Ticket. Please identify the
       specific dates of the back pay period within the ticket comments.

Attach the following documentation to the Remedy Ticket, or provide a statement in the ticket
comments as to why the documentation is not applicable:

☐ 2) Settlement agreement, administrative determination, arbitrator award, or order.

☐ 3) Signed and completed “Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay”.

☐ 4) All required SF50s (new, corrected, or canceled). ***Do not process online SF50s
       until notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 5) Certified timecards/corrected timecards. ***Do not process online timecards until
       notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 6) All relevant benefit election forms (e.g. TSP, FEHB, etc.).

☐ 7) Outside earnings documentation. Include record of all amounts earned by the employee
       in a job undertaken during the back pay period to replace federal employment.
       Documentation includes W-2 or 1099 statements, payroll documents/records, etc. Also,
       include record of any unemployment earning statements, workers’ compensation,
       CSRS/FERS retirement annuity payments, refunds of CSRS/FERS employee premiums,
       or severance pay received by the employee upon separation.

Lump Sum Leave Payment Debts: When a separation is later reversed, there is no authority
under 5 U.S.C. § 5551 for the reinstated employee to keep the lump sum annual leave payment
they may have received. The payroll office must collect the debt from the back pay award. The
annual leave will be restored to the employee. Annual leave that exceeds the annual leave
ceiling will be restored to a separate leave account pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805(g).
NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES
Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process
payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as ordered by
the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts.
1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise information
   describing what to do in accordance with decision.
2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration:
       a. Employee name and social security number.
       b. Detailed explanation of request.
       c. Valid agency accounting.
       d. Authorized signature (Table 63).
       e. If interest is to be included.
       f. Check mailing address.
       g. Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached.
       h. Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to be
           collected (if applicable).
Attachments to AD-343
1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday
   Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement (if applicable).
2. Copies of SF-50s (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and amounts.
3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency.
4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address to
   return monies.
5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)
6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of the
   type of leave to be charged and number of hours.
7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual Leave
   to be paid.
NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay Period and
required data in 1-7 above.
The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump Sum
Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.)
       a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.
       b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided.
       c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable.
If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s
Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.