Court Opinion

ID: 9908217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:00:55.837311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:00.162396
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1322    Document: 33     Page: 1   Filed: 12/08/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  MONA ELHELBAWY,
                      Petitioner

                             v.

           DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                        2023-1322
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DE-1221-15-0438-W-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: December 8, 2023
                 ______________________

    MONA ELHELBAWY, Boulder, CO, pro se.

     MARGARET JANTZEN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, CORINNE ANNE NIOSI.
                   ______________________

 Before PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1322    Document: 33      Page: 2    Filed: 12/08/2023

 2                                   ELHELBAWY v. COMMERCE

     Mona ElHelbawy worked for the federal government in
 the United States Department of Commerce. After a sus-
 tained absence from work, she was removed from her job.
 Ms. ElHelbawy appealed the removal to the Merit Systems
 Protection Board under 5 U.S.C. ch. 75, asserting in part
 that her removal constituted whistleblower retaliation.
 The Board rejected that appeal on the merits, but it con-
 cluded that Ms. ElHelbawy had sought to present a broader
 appeal on whistleblower grounds (not limited to the re-
 moval action) under the statutory sections providing for an
 individual right of action (IRA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214, 1221, and
 the Board forwarded the IRA appeal to the relevant admin-
 istrative judge so that it could be addressed. Upon address-
 ing the IRA appeal, the administrative judge dismissed it
 for outside the Board’s jurisdiction and as (partially)
 barred by res judicata, ElHelbawy v. Department of Com-
 merce, No. DE-1221-15-0438-W-1, 2017 WL 2774838
 (M.S.P.B. June 21, 2017) (2017 Decision), and the full
 Board affirmed that decision, ElHelbawy v. Department of
 Commerce, No. DE-1221-15-0438-W-1, 2022 WL 14935535
 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 26, 2022) (2022 Decision). Ms. ElHelbawy
 appeals. We affirm the Board’s decision.
                               I
      In 2012, Ms. ElHelbawy worked as an electronics engi-
 neer at the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences,
 which is a component of the National Telecommunications
 and Information Administration, which is a component of
 Commerce. On March 21, 2012, Ms. ElHelbawy told her
 supervisor that she was experiencing congestion and other
 symptoms, which she attributed to workplace conditions.
 Her building was then tested, but monitoring and sampling
 showed the indoor air quality to be acceptable and revealed
 no sign of unusual contaminants. Nevertheless, starting
 at least on May 7, 2012, and continuing at least until Octo-
 ber 10, 2012, Ms. ElHelbawy, without approval, failed to
 report for duty. On October 15, 2012, her employer pro-
 posed to remove her, and it eventually adopted that
Case: 23-1322    Document: 33      Page: 3    Filed: 12/08/2023

 ELHELBAWY v. COMMERCE                                      3

 proposal, with removal effective November 15, 2022. See
 Pet’r’s Appx., Appendices L (proposal), M (removal deci-
 sion), O (corrected date); SAppx. 22, 47–49, 69. 1
     Between May 7 and November 15, Ms. ElHelbawy re-
 mained in contact with her supervisors, who regularly in-
 formed her that she was required to report for duty and
 that she had not provided sufficient medical documenta-
 tion to justify her absence. Ms. ElHelbawy did provide
 some medical documentation, but her supervisors, after
 discussions with Human Resources employees, found the
 submitted documentation to be insufficient and notified
 Ms. ElHelbawy of that determination. Ms. ElHelbawy’s su-
 pervisors also repeatedly notified her that her continued
 absence could result in disciplinary action. See Pet’r’s
 Appx., Appendix L; SAppx. 49–51.
      During her absence from work, Ms. ElHelbawy filed
 several complaints in different forums. She filed two com-
 plaints with the Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
 istration (OSHA) before she was removed from her job. In
 the first complaint, filed on June 25, 2012, she complained
 of construction work, remodeling, and window replacement
 projects and said she experienced skin irritation, phlegm
 build-up, thick dry nasal mucus, and congestion symptoms.
 SAppx. 51–52. In the second complaint, filed on September
 5, 2012, she alleged that her employer failed to take correc-
 tive action to address her reported health issues; failed to
 report her injury; retaliated against her for reporting
 health symptoms induced by her work environment; and
 misrepresented facts so as to deny her salary, workers

     1  “Pet’r’s Appx.” refers to the appendix filed by Ms.
 ElHelbawy with her brief in this court as petitioner; it in-
 cludes separately lettered Appendices. “SAppx.” refers to
 the supplemental appendix filed by Commerce in this court
 with its brief as respondent.
Case: 23-1322    Document: 33      Page: 4    Filed: 12/08/2023

 4                                   ELHELBAWY v. COMMERCE

 compensation benefits, and any kind of medical examina-
 tion and treatment costs. SAppx. 52–53.
      Ms. ElHelbawy also filed two whistleblower complaints
 with the Office of Special Counsel. In the first complaint,
 filed on August 6, 2012 (before her removal), she alleged
 that her employer falsified time and attendance records
 and reported her as absent without leave to prevent her
 from receiving benefits or filing a legitimate workers com-
 pensation claim. SAppx. 52. She said that she had con-
 tacted the building manager about the air quality in her
 building. Id. In her second complaint, filed on November
 14, 2012 (after her removal), Ms. ElHelbawy alleged that
 her employer had denied her telework request; falsified her
 time and attendance records; made false statements about
 her medical documentation; provided false statements and
 time and attendance records to her claims examiner; de-
 nied her information necessary to complete assigned pro-
 jects; and denied her information about contaminants and
 chemicals present at her work-site. SAppx. 53.
     On December 14, 2012, Ms. ElHelbawy filed an appeal
 with the Board challenging her removal from the federal
 service for absence without leave and failure to follow leave
 requesting procedures. SAppx. 53. In that chapter 75 ap-
 peal, Ms. ElHelbawy challenged the basis for removal and
 also alleged, as affirmative defenses, that she was sub-
 jected to disparate treatment based on her sex, race, na-
 tional origin, color, disability, and religion; harmful
 procedural error; prohibited personnel practices; and whis-
 tleblower retaliation because she reported safety violations
 to OSHA on June 25, 2012, and filed a request for correc-
 tive action with the Office of Special Counsel on August 6,
 2012. SAppx. 53–54. The administrative judge assigned
 to the matter issued an initial decision finding that Com-
 merce proved the grounds justifying removal and that Ms.
 ElHelbawy failed to establish any of her affirmative de-
 fenses. ElHelbawy v. Department of Commerce, No. DE-
Case: 23-1322    Document: 33     Page: 5    Filed: 12/08/2023

 ELHELBAWY v. COMMERCE                                     5

 0752-13-0130-I-2, 2014 WL 2853621 (M.S.P.B June 20,
 2014).
     The Board issued a final order denying Ms. ElHel-
 bawy’s petition for review and affirming the initial deci-
 sion. ElHelbawy v. Department of Commerce, No. DE-
 0752-13-0130-I-2, 2015 WL 3750738 (M.S.P.B. June 16,
 2015). But the Board also determined that Ms. ElHelbawy
 had attempted to raise whistleblower claims in an IRA ap-
 peal with the Board, but the attempt had not been recog-
 nized, and so the IRA appeal had not been addressed. The
 Board forwarded the IRA appeal for it to be addressed. Id.
 ¶¶ 10–15; SAppx. 74–76.
      On June 31, 2017, the administrative judge consider-
 ing the IRA appeal issued an initial decision dismissing it
 for lack of jurisdiction. 2017 Decision, supra; SAppx. 20.
 The administrative judge determined that neither of Ms.
 ElHelbawy’s complaints to the Office of Special Counsel
 identified the disclosures that constituted whistleblowing
 activity or identified how the unidentified disclosures were
 a contributing factor in her employer’s decision to take or
 fail to take the personnel actions she specified. SAppx. 23–
 25. The administrative judge determined that res judicata
 precluded the relitigation of any claims involving one par-
 ticular adverse personnel action, namely, Ms. ElHelbawy’s
 removal from the federal service, which was the subject of
 her chapter 75 appeal. SAppx. 25–26. On October 26,
 2022, the Board denied Ms. ElHelbawy’s petition for review
 and affirmed the initial decision. 2022 Decision ¶ 1;
 SAppx. 1–2.
Case: 23-1322    Document: 33      Page: 6    Filed: 12/08/2023

 6                                   ELHELBAWY v. COMMERCE

     Ms. ElHelbawy timely filed her appeal on December 23,
 2022, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). We have juris-
 diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 2
                              II
     We will affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) ar-
 bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
 in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
 quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
 (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”            5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(c). Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence
 as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
 a conclusion.’” Moravec v. Office of Personnel Management,
 393 F.3d 1263, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Consolidated
 Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S.
 197, 229 (1938)). We review the Board’s legal determina-
 tions de novo. Salmon v. Social Security Administration,
 663 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We review the
 Board’s jurisdictional determination here de novo. Cahill
 v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 821 F.3d 1370, 1373
 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
     For the Board to have jurisdiction over Ms. ElHel-
 bawy’s IRA appeal, she had to have exhausted her admin-
 istrative remedies before the Office of Special Counsel, 5
 U.S.C. §§ 1214(a)(3), 1221(a), and made nonfrivolous alle-
 gations that (1) she engaged in whistleblowing activity by
 making a protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)
 and (2) the disclosure was a contributing factor in the
 agency’s decision to take or fail to take a personnel action
 as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a). Yunus v. Department of
 Veterans Affairs, 242 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see
 Cahill, 821 F.3d at 1373. For the exhaustion requirement

     2  Ms. ElHelbawy filed Form 10 in this court stating
 that she wished to abandon discrimination claims she had
 previously pressed in this matter. ECF No. 3 at 3.
Case: 23-1322    Document: 33     Page: 7    Filed: 12/08/2023

 ELHELBAWY v. COMMERCE                                     7

 to serve its intended purpose, an employee must inform the
 Office of Special Counsel of the precise ground of her
 charge of whistleblowing. Ward v. Merit Systems Protec-
 tion Board, 981 F.2d 521, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see Piccolo
 v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 869 F.3d 1369, 1371
 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (rejecting “‘vague, conclusory, or facially
 insufficient’” allegations (quoting Johnston v. Merit Sys-
 tems Protection Board, 518 F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2008))).
 Accordingly, we have long held that “substantive details
 establishing jurisdiction must be alleged in the complaint,”
 and “the test of the sufficiency of an employee’s charges of
 whistleblowing to the [Office of Special Counsel] is the
 statement that the employee makes in the complaint re-
 questing corrective action under 5 U.S.C. § 1214, not the
 employee’s post hoc characterization of those statements.”
 Ellison v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 7 F.3d 1031,
 1036 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis omitted).
     We see no reversible error in the Board’s determination
 that in neither her August 27, 2012 nor her November 14,
 2012 complaint to the Office of Special Counsel did Ms.
 ElHelbawy make sufficiently precise charges that she en-
 gaged in whistleblowing activity or that the disclosure was
 a contributing factor in the employer’s decision to remove
 her. In her August 27, 2012 complaint, Ms. ElHelbawy
 challenged multiple actions by the Institute for Telecom-
 munication Sciences, but she did not identify any pur-
 ported    disclosure    that    could   have     constituted
 whistleblowing activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or indi-
 cate how such a qualifying disclosure contributed to those
 actions. See Pet’r’s Appx., Appendix F (August 6, 2012 com-
 plaint). In her November 14, 2012 complaint, Ms. ElHel-
 bawy listed five disclosures—a complaint filed with an
 Equal Employment Office (on September 21, 2011), three
 complaints filed with Commerce’s Office of Inspector Gen-
 eral (on June 11, 2012, July 31, 2012, and October 23,
 2012), and a complaint filed with OSHA (on June 25,
 2012)—which might have constituted whistleblowing
Case: 23-1322    Document: 33      Page: 8     Filed: 12/08/2023

 8                                  ELHELBAWY v. COMMERCE

 activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). See Pet’r’s Appx., Ap-
 pendix G (November 14, 2012 complaint) at 5. But Ms.
 ElHelbawy did not discuss those disclosures or tie them to
 the challenged personnel actions. Her complaint lacks the
 substantive details required to establish jurisdiction.
 Thus, the Board correctly determined that it does not have
 jurisdiction over Ms. ElHelbawy’s IRA appeal.
     Because we conclude that Ms. ElHelbawy failed to
 meet the standard for Board jurisdiction over her IRA ap-
 peal, we need not address the Board’s determination that
 res judicata precludes relitigation of any claims involving
 her removal from federal service. We have also considered
 Ms. ElHelbawy’s other arguments, none of which change
 our determination.
                             III
    For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Merit Sys-
 tems Protection Board is affirmed.
     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                        AFFIRMED