Court Opinion

ID: 9372852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:01:07.333161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:38.130108
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     GERARDO GARZA,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DE-315H-22-0094-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                          DATE: February 13, 2023
       SECURITY,
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Gerardo Garza, Laredo, Texas, pro se.

           Kimberly Finley, Esquire, Tucson, Arizona, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we
     GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, AFFIRM the administrative judge’s
     finding that the Board lacks jurisdiction to review the appellant’s probationary

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     termination under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 or 5 C.F.R. part 315, subpart H, VACATE
     the administrative judge’s finding that the Board lacks jurisdiction over his denial
     of restoration claims, REMAND the appeal to the Denver Field Office for a
     hearing on the merits of the appellant’s claim that on or about January 3, 2022,
     the agency violated his restoration rights following partial recovery from a
     compensable injury, and FORWARD the appellant’s petition for review to the
     Denver Field Office for docketing as a new appeal concerning his claim that the
     agency unlawfully denied his subsequent March 4, 2022 request for restoration.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant began employment with the agency as a Customs and Border
     Protection Officer (CBPO) on May 23, 2021.             Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 5 at 7. His appointment was subject to a 1-year probationary period. Id. On
     June 8, 2021, the appellant suffered on-the-job injuries to his neck and ankle.
     IAF, Tab 1 at 5, 7. The appellant has alleged that the injuries were “approved” by
     the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs and are therefore compensable
     injuries. IAF, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 8 at 4. The agency placed him in a light-duty
     position, which he performed until January 3, 2022. IAF, Tab 1 at 7. By letter
     dated December 10, 2021, which the appellant asserts he received on January 3,
     2022, the agency terminated the appellant’s employment 7 months into his
     probationary period because he was unable to return to full duty to complete the
     required training for CBPOs. Id. at 3, 7.
¶3        The appellant appealed to the Board. Id. at 1-11. The administrative judge
     issued two jurisdictional orders. IAF, Tabs 3, 7. The first order explained that
     the Board ordinarily lacks jurisdiction over termination appeals brought by
     probationary employees with less than 1 year of Federal service and provided the
     appellant with an opportunity to establish that he is an “employee” with appeal
     rights, as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7511, or that he met one of the other exceptions
     to establish jurisdiction over his appeal. IAF, Tab 3. The appellant submitted a
                                                                                       3

     response, in part, asserting that he was seeking restoration as an employee who
     partially recovered from a compensable injury.           IAF, Tab 6 at 4.       The
     administrative judge then issued a second jurisdictional order, which explained
     how to establish jurisdiction over a restoration appeal.       IAF, Tab 7.   In his
     March 4, 2022 response to the second jurisdictional order, the appellant asserted
     that he had recovered from one of his compensable injuries and attached medical
     documentation in support of his assertion. IAF, Tab 8 at 4-60. Without holding a
     hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing th e appeal
     for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID) at 2-8.
¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, and the
     agency has filed a response in opposition.       Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tabs 1, 3.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         Generally, probationary employees with less than 1 year of Federal service,
     like the appellant, have limited statutory and regulatory rights on appeal. The
     appellant has not challenged, and we find no error in, the administrative judge’s
     finding that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appellant’s termination appeal
     because the appellant failed to establish that he is an “employee” with appeal
     rights under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 and he failed to nonfrivolously allege that his
     termination was motivated by marital status discrimination or partisan political
     reasons or that it was based, in whole or part, on matters that occurred before his
     appointment. ID at 4-6. Accordingly, we affirm those findings.
¶6         However, a probationary employee, like the appellant, may appeal a denial
     of restoration rights based on a compensable injury. See Roche v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 828 F.2d 1555, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Pursuant to 5 C.F.R § 353.301(d),
     agencies are required to “make every effort to restore in the local commuting
     area, according to the circumstances in each case, an individual who has partially
     recovered from a compensable injury and who is able to return to limited duty.”
                                                                                       4

     To establish Board jurisdiction over a restoration claim as a partially recovered
     employee, the appellant must make nonfrivolous allegations of the following:
     (1) he was absent from his position due to a compensable injury; (2) he recovered
     sufficiently to return to duty on a part-time basis, or to return to work in a
     position with less demanding physical requirements than those previously
     required of him; (3) the agency denied his request for restoration; and (4) the
     denial was arbitrary and capricious. Cronin v. U.S. Postal Service, 2022 MSPB
     13, ¶ 12. A denial of restoration is arbitrary and capricious if, and only if, the
     agency failed to meet its obligations under 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d), i.e., to search
     within the local commuting area for vacant positions to which it can restore a
     partially recovered employee and to consider him for any such vacancies.
     Cronin, 2022 MSPB 13, ¶¶ 14, 20.        Determining whether an agency met its
     obligation under section 353.301(d) will turn on whether it “ma[d]e every effort”
     to restore a partially recovered employee “in the local commuting area” and
     “according to the circumstances in each case.”        Id., ¶ 21 (quoting 5 C.F.R.
     § 353.301(d)).
¶7        The administrative judge found, and the parties do not dispute, that the
     appellant nonfrivolously alleged that he suffered a compensable injury and that he
     recovered sufficiently to return to work in a position with less demanding
     physical requirements than those previously required of him, therefore meeting
     the first two elements of the jurisdictional analysis. ID at 6 -7. As to the third
     element, the administrative judge found that the appellant failed to nonfri volously
     allege that the agency denied his request for restoration because he never
     requested restoration.   ID at 8.   We disagree.    The Board has held that the
     rescission of a previously provided restoration or the discontinuation of a
     limited-duty position may constitute an appealable denial of restoration,
     regardless of whether the action was protested by the employee and whether he
     made a specific request for restoration at that time . Scott v. U.S. Postal Service,
     118 M.S.P.R. 375, ¶¶ 9-10 & n.2 (2012).          The appellant has submitted his
                                                                                          5

     termination letter, which discontinued his light-duty position. IAF, Tab 1 at 7-8.
     Thus, we find that the appellant has nonfrivolously alleged that the agency denied
     his restoration rights when it discontinued his light-duty position on January 3,
     2022. IAF, Tab 1 at 3, 7-8. Regarding the fourth element, the agency appears to
     suggest in its filings that it did not conduct a search for vacant positions in the
     local commuting area. 2 IAF, Tab 9 at 6. Accordingly, we find that the appellant
     has nonfrivolously alleged jurisdiction over appeal concerning the alleged denial
     of his restoration rights on January 3, 2022, and we remand to the Denver Field
     Office for a hearing on the merits of that claim.
¶8         We also address a second potential restoration claim. In his March 4, 2022
     response to the jurisdictional order, the appellant asserted that he had recovered
     further since the agency terminated his employment, and he submitted medical
     documentation related to one of his two alleged compensable injuries. IAF, Tab 8
     at 4. In response, the agency asserted that the appellant could contact the agency
     to invoke his restoration rights as a partially recovered employee, in which case it
     would then attempt to restore him. IAF, Tab 9 at 6. We find that the appellant’s
     filing is sufficient to put the agency on notice that he is seeking restoration as a
     partially recovered employee. To the extent the agency expects the appellant to
     submit additional filings in order to invoke his restoration rights, we find that this
     is inconsistent with Board case law. See Gerdes v. Department of the Treasury,
     89 M.S.P.R. 500, ¶¶ 12-13 (2001) (cautioning against the imposition of additional
     notice requirements beyond those set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 353.301 for an individual
     who seeks restoration). The appellant’s petition for review suggests that, as of
     the filing date of that petition, the agency had not yet acted on his request. PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 4. Accordingly, we forward the appellant’s petition for review to

     2
       The agency argues that it would be unreasonable to reinstate the appellant to a law
     enforcement position because he is unable to attend the basic training academy. IAF,
     Tab 9 at 6. Although this argument relates to the merits and should be addressed by the
     administrative judge on remand, we note that 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d) does not require
     reinstatement to the same position held at the time of the injury.
                                                                                           6

     the Denver Field Office for docketing as a new appeal regarding the denial of
     restoration rights after March 4, 2022. 3

                                            ORDER
¶9         For the reasons discussed above, we remand this appeal to the Denver Field
     Office for a hearing on the merits of the appellant’s claim that on or about
     January 3, 2022, the agency violated his restoration rights following partial
     recovery from a compensable injury. We also forward the appellant’s petition for
     review to the Denver Field Office for docketing as a new appeal regarding the
     appellant’s claim that the agency denied his March 4, 2022 request for restoration
     as a partially recovered employee.

     FOR THE BOARD:                                      /s/ for
                                                 Jennifer Everling
                                                 Acting Clerk of the Board
     Washington, D.C.

     3
       We make no findings as to whether the appellant has established jurisdiction over this
     claim.