Court Opinion

ID: 9372895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:01:24.595914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:38.607488
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MARIA DE LA CRUZ MAGOWAN,                       DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-1221-16-0390-W-1

                  v.

     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                        DATE: February 7, 2023
       AGENCY,
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Maria de la Cruz MaGowan, Bethesda, Maryland, pro se.

           Alexandra Meighan, Washington, D.C., 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 her individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For
     the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review and

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 id entified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                   2

     REMAND the case to the regional office for further adjudication in accordance
     with this Remand Order.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2           In this appeal, the appellant, a GS-14 Program Analyst, alleged that the
     agency issued her an official reprimand in reprisal for her April 2003 protected
     disclosure to the agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 1, Tab 8 at 5. She asserted that the reprimand was part of an unabated
     series of retaliatory actions that began at the time of her April 2003 disclosure
     and became worse after the arrival of her current supervisor in 2010. IAF, Tab 8
     at 5. She argued that she exhausted her administrative remedies before the Office
     of Special Counsel (OSC) and that she had made the requisite nonfrivolous
     allegations that she made a protected disclosure that was a contributing factor in
     the agency’s decision to take a personnel action, i.e., the official reprimand. Id.
     at 6.
¶3           Without holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge dismissed
     the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that, even though the appellant showed
     that she had exhausted her administrative remedies before OSC, she failed to
     make a nonfrivolous allegation that she made a protected disclosure and, even if
     she had done so, she failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that her disclosure
     was a contributing factor in the agency’s decision to issue the official reprimand.
     IAF, Tab 12, Initial Decision (ID).     In her petition for review, the appellant
     argues that the Board already has found that she made nonfrivolous allegations
     that her April 2003 disclosure was protected and was a contributing factor in the
     agency’s decision to take or fail to take a personnel action. Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 1-2. The agency has filed a response in opposition to the
     appellant’s petition for review and the appellant has filed a reply to the agency’s
     response. PFR File, Tabs 3-4.
                                                                                         3

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4         The Board has jurisdiction over an IRA appeal if the appellant has
     exhausted her administrative remedies before OSC and makes nonfr ivolous
     allegations that:    (1) she engaged in whistleblowing activity by making a
     protected disclosure; and (2) the disclosure was a contributing factor in the
     agency’s decision to take or fail to take a personnel action.                Bradley v.
     Department of Homeland Security, 123 M.S.P.R. 547, ¶ 6 (2016); see also
     Yunus v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 242 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 2
     As noted above, the administrative judge dismissed this appeal based on the
     written record without holding a hearing because he found that, while the
     appellant did show that she exhausted her administrative remedies before OSC,
     she failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that she made a protected disclosure
     and that, even if she did, she failed to allege that it was a contributing factor in
     the agency’s decision to issue the official reprimand. ID at 8-10. The agency
     has not challenged, and we discern no basis to disturb, the administrative judge’s
     finding that the appellant showed that she exhausted her administrative remedies
     before OSC. However, for the reasons set forth below, we find that the appellant
     has   made     the      requisite   nonfrivolous    allegations    to   establish       the
     Board’s jurisdiction.

     The appellant nonfrivolously alleged that she made a protected disclosure that
     was a contributing factor in her official reprimand.
¶5         On review, the appellant asserts that the disclosure involved in this appeal
     is the same April 2003 disclosure reported in her prior IRA appeals. PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 2.   The Board previously has found that the appellant nonfrivolously

     2
       Historically, the Board has been bound by the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals
     for the Federal Circuit on these types of whistleblower issues. However, pursuant to
     the All Circuit Review Act, Pub. L. No. 115-195, 132 Stat. 1510, appellants may file
     petitions for judicial review of Board decisions in whistleblower reprisal cases with any
     circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).
     Therefore, we must consider these issues with the view that the appellant may seek
     review of this decision before any appropriate court of appeal.
                                                                                           4

     alleged that she disclosed both a violation of law and a gross waste of funds in
     this April 2003 disclosure to the OIG.        MaGowan v. Environmental Protection
     Agency, 119 M.S.P.R. 9, ¶ 7 (2012). For the same reasons as set forth in our prior
     Opinion and Order, we find that the appellant has nonfrivolously alleged that she
     made a protected disclosure here. Id.
¶6          The appellant further contends that the same protected disclosure was a
     contributing factor in the agency’s decision to issue her an official reprimand.
     PFR File, Tab 1 at 4; IAF, Tab 1 at 5, 7-8; Tab 8 at 5. The administrative judge
     found that, given that the protected activity occurred in 2003 and the reprimand
     took place in 2015, the appellant failed to nonfrivoulously allege that the
     personnel action occurred within a period of time such that a reasonable person
     could conclude that the disclosure was a contributing factor to the reprimand. ID
     at 4. In our prior Opinion and Order, however, we explained that, to satisfy the
     contributing factor criterion at the jurisdictional stage, the appellant need only
     nonfrivolously allege that the fact of, or the contents of, the protected disclosure
     in any way affected the personnel action at issue. MaGowan, 119 M.S.P.R. 9,
     ¶ 9.   Thus, the appellant need not nonfrivolously allege that she met the
     knowledge/timing test to satisfy the criterion. 3 Id., ¶ 9 n.3.
¶7          There, we credited the appellant’s allegations that her supervisor had asked
     about her April 2003 protected disclosure and that she had subsequently provided

     3
       The knowledge/timing test allows an appellant to demonstrate that the disclosure was
     a contributing factor in a personnel action through circumstantial evidence, such as
     evidence that the deciding official had knowledge of the disclosure and acted within
     such a time period that a reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure was a
     contributing factor in the personnel action. Dorney v. Department of the Army,
     117 M.S.P.R. 480, ¶ 14 (2012). However, the knowledge/timing test is not the only
     way for an appellant to satisfy the contributing factor standard; rather, it is only one of
     many possible ways to satisfy the standard. Id. Other relevant evidence on the
     contributing factor question includes the strength of the agency’s evidence as to the
     reasons it cited for taking the personnel action, whether the whistleblowing disclosure
     was personally directed at the proposing or deciding officials, and whether these
     individuals had a desire or motive to retaliate against the appellant. Id., ¶ 15.
                                                                                        5

     her supervisor a copy of the OIG’s report regarding her allegations just 6 months
     before the agency took the 2010 personnel action at issue in that IRA appeal. Id.,
     ¶ 10. Thus, even though the disclosure itself predated the personnel action by
     many years, we found that the May 2010 inquiry initiated by the appellant’s
     supervisor into those disclosures raised a material issue about the agency’s
     reasons for the personnel action, and constituted a nonfrivolous allegation that
     her April 2003 disclosure to the OIG was a contributing factor to that 2010
     personnel action.     Id., ¶ 10; see, e.g., Dorney v. Department of the Army,
     117 M.S.P.R. 480, ¶ 15 (2012) (explaining that any weight given to a
     whistleblowing disclosure, either alone or in combination with other factors, can
     satisfy the contributing factor standard).
¶8         In this IRA appeal, the appellant has asserted before OSC and the Board
     that the personnel action at issue here is part of a series of retaliatory actions that
     has continued unabated from when her supervisor inquired about her protect ed
     disclosures in May 2010 through the issuance of the official reprimand.            IAF,
     Tab 1 at 5, 7-8, 15-16.     The appellant alleged that, since inquiring about her
     disclosure in 2010, her supervisor has engaged in a series of threatening actions.
     Id. at 15. 4 After one such episode in June 2015, she alleged that she went to court
     to seek a temporary restraining order against the supervisor, who issued the
     reprimand involved here just over 4 months later. Id. Therefore, although the
     administrative judge correctly found that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously
     allege that she met the knowledge/timing test, we nevertheless find that the
     appellant instead has nonfrivolously alleged that she met the contributing factor

     4
       We agree with the administrative judge that the only personnel action at issue in this
     IRA appeal is the October 2015 reprimand. ID at 8, n.6. To the extent the appellant’s
     claims concern events other than the reprimand, those claims are being adjudicated
     separately in MaGowan v. Environmental Protection Agency, MSPB Docket No. DC-
     1221-15-0671-B-1. See Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612, ¶ 23
     (2015) (finding that a hostile work environment itself may constitute a covered
     personnel action under the WPA), overruled in part by Pridgen v. Office of
     Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 23-25.
                                                                                   6

     criterion by raising a material issue about the agency’s reasons for issuing the
     reprimand. See Dorney, 117 M.S.P.R. 480, ¶¶ 14-17 (finding that the length of
     time between a disclosure and a personnel action is not dispositive on the issue of
     contributing factor and evidence raising a material issue regarding the agency’s
     evidence for taking the action should be considered when an appellant is unable
     to satisfy the knowledge/timing test). Thus, we similarly find that the appellant
     has nonfrivolously alleged that her protected disclosure was a contributing factor
     in the issuance of the official reprimand.     MaGowan, 119 M.S.P.R. 9, ¶ 10;
     Agoranos v. Department of Justice, 119 M.S.P.R. 498, ¶¶ 22-23 (2013) (finding
     that, because the appellant was subjected to a continuum of related personnel
     actions beginning shortly after his disclosure, he met the contributing
     factor criterion); see also Hessami v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 979 F.3d
     1362, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding that, whether the appellant has
     nonfrivolously alleged that protected disclosures or activity contributed to a
     personnel action must be determined based on whether the employee alleged
     sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on
     its face).
¶9         Consequently, we find that the appellant established OSC exhaustion
     regarding her 2015 reprimand, and that she made nonfrivolous allegations
     sufficient to entitle her to a hearing on the merits of her claim that the agency
     issued her the reprimand in reprisal for that protected disclosure. To prove her
     claim on the merits, the appellant must show by preponderant evidence that her
     disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency’s personnel action.        E.g.,
     Chavez v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 120 M.S.P.R. 285, ¶ 17 (2013). If the
     appellant proves her claim on the merits, the agency then may attempt to establish
     by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel
     action in the absence of the disclosure. Id.
                                                                                 7

                                          ORDER
¶10        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
      for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

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