Court Opinion

ID: 9960101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 14:00:50.350552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:10.814920
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ELMER K. BLACKSTONE,                            DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DA-1221-18-0079-W-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,                           DATE: April 12, 2024
            Agency.

          THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Andrew Kim , Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant.

      Adam DeDent , Esquire, Reesha Trznadel , Esquire and Sean Johnson ,
        Esquire, Golden, Colorado, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
denied his request for corrective action in this individual right of action (IRA)
appeal.   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
or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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. Except as expressly MODIFIED as
to the second Carr factor to find a slight retaliatory motive in connection with the
appellant’s suspension and to supplement the administrative judge’s analysis
regarding the third Carr factor, we AFFIRM the initial decision.

                                 BACKGROUND
      The appellant is employed as a GS-15 Program Manager at the agency’s
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), Office of Corporate Compliance.
Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 13 at 43.       On July 19, 2017, his supervisor
proposed to suspend him for 14 days based on charges of inappropriate remarks
and inappropriate conduct toward a supervisor. Id. at 22-24. In support of the
inappropriate remarks charge, the proposal notice alleged that, while at the airport
on business travel on June 4, 2017, the appellant stated to a female coworker that
he had access to her home address because he was in human resources and that he
could find her phone number by going “in any men’s room around here and it will
be written on the wall.”     Id. at 22.   The proposal notice explained that the
appellant made this statement in the presence of another coworker and an airport
employee and that he was wearing an SWPA logo shirt at the time.             Id.   In
support of the inappropriate conduct toward a supervisor charge, the proposal
notice set forth the following two specifications: (1) on June 6, 2017, when the
appellant met with his supervisor to discuss his June 4, 2017 comments, he stated,
                                                                                     3

among other things, “I am either going to make your life hard, or make your life
easy”; and (2) during a phone call on July 12, 2017, the appellant talked over his
supervisor and stated, among other things, “you’re about to get schooled in
employee relations and labor relations” and “you better hope you have your house
in order because if you don’t, it’s not gonna be good for you.” 2 Id. at 22-23.
      On July 21, 2017, the appellant filed a complaint with the Office of Special
Counsel (OSC) alleging that his supervisor proposed to suspend him in retaliation
for informing him that the SWPA Administrator’s request to have an attorney
advisor reassigned after she conveyed her intent to file an Office Inspector
General (OIG) report would constitute reprisal for whistleblowing. IAF, Tab 6
at 17-27. The appellant also alleged that the proposed suspension was taken in
retaliation for informing an OIG investigator about the SWPA Administrator’s
attempted reprisal against the attorney advisor. Id. at 21. In September 2017,
OSC notified the appellant that it was closing its investigation into his complaint
without action. IAF, Tab 1 at 92-98.
      The appellant timely filed the instant IRA appeal. IAF, Tab 1. Although
he initially requested a hearing, he subsequently withdrew that request.          IAF,
Tabs 33, 35. In an initial decision based on the written record, the administrative
judge found jurisdiction over the appeal but denied the appellant’s request for
corrective action, finding that the agency established by clear and convincing
evidence that it would have proposed his 14-day suspension even in the absence
of his protected whistleblowing disclosure. IAF, Tab 42, Initial Decision (ID).
      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, and the
agency has responded in opposition. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3.

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      When, as here, an appellant establishes jurisdiction over his IRA appeal, he
must then establish a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation by proving by
2
  On October 13, 2017, the deciding official sustained the charges but mitigated the
proposed suspension period to 5 days. IAF, Tab 13 at 19-20.
                                                                                      4

preponderant evidence that he made a protected disclosure that was a contributing
factor in a personnel action taken against him. 3      5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(1); Lu v.
Department of Homeland Security, 122 M.S.P.R. 335, ¶ 7 (2015). If the appellant
makes out a prima facie case, the agency is given an opportunity to prove, by
clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same personnel action
in the absence of the protected disclosure or activity. 4 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(1)-(2);
Lu, 122 M.S.P.R. 335, ¶ 7.       In determining whether an agency has met this
burden, the Board will consider the following factors: (1) the strength of the
agency’s evidence in support of its action; (2) the existence and strength of any
motive to retaliate on the part of the agency officials who were involved in the
decision; and (3) any evidence that the agency takes similar actions against
employees who are not whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly situated.
Carr v. Social Security Administration, 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The Board does not view these factors as discrete elements, each of which the
agency must prove by clear and convincing evidence. Lu, 122 M.S.P.R. 335, ¶ 7.
Rather, the Board will weigh the factors together to determine whether the
evidence is clear and convincing as a whole. Id.
      In the initial decision, the administrative judge found that the appellant
made a protected disclosure that he reasonably believed evidenced a violation of
the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) when, on June 1 and 2,
2017, he informed his supervisor that the SWPA Administrator’s plan to reassign
the attorney advisor after she stated that she intended to file an OIG report could
constitute whistleblower reprisal. ID at 11-13. She also found that the appellant
established that his disclosure was a contributing factor in the proposed

3
  Preponderant evidence is that degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person,
considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested
fact is more likely true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).
4
  Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that produces in the
mind of the trier of fact a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be established.
5 C.F.R. § 1209.4(e).
                                                                                    5

suspension by showing that his supervisor knew of the disclosure and that he
proposed to suspend him within a short period of time after he made the
disclosure. ID at 16. Thus, she concluded that the appellant established a prima
facie case of whistleblower reprisal with respect to his disclosure of a potential
WPEA violation to his supervisor. 5 ID at 10-16. We agree with these findings,
which the parties have not challenged on review.
      Having concluded that the appellant established a prima facie case of
whistleblower reprisal, the administrative judge proceeded to consider whether
the agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it would have
taken the same personnel action against the appellant in the absence of his
protected disclosure.     ID at 17-25.      Regarding the first Carr factor, the
administrative judge found that the agency’s evidence in support of the proposed
14-day suspension was strong because, even crediting the appellant’s version of
the events at issue, his behavior was inappropriate. ID at 19-23, 25. She further
found it significant that the appellant did not dispute, as alleged in the proposal
notice, that his supervisor had counseled him on several occasions in the past
about the manner in which he treated and spoke to employees. ID at 22. The
appellant has not challenged these findings on review, PFR File, Tab 1, and we
discern no basis to disturb them. Thus, we agree that the agency’s evidence in
support of the proposed suspension was strong.
      Regarding the second Carr factor, the administrative judge found that the
record was devoid of any evidence suggesting retaliatory motive on the part of
the appellant’s supervisor in proposing the 14-day suspension. 6 ID at 23-24. To
5
  The administrative judge found that the appellant’s May 2017 email to his supervisor
regarding the “Separation of [the Equal Employment Opportunity] Complaint Program
from the Agency’s Defensive Function” did not constitute a protected disclosure and
that, although he engaged in protected activity when he made the OIG report, he failed
to establish contributing factor with respect to that activity. ID at 10-13, 16. The
appellant does not challenge these findings on review, PFR File, Tab 1, and we discern
no basis to disturb them.
6
  The administrative judge found that there was no evidence that the SWPA
Administrator had any involvement in the appellant’s proposed suspension. ID at 24
                                                                                    6

the contrary, she found that the record established that he agreed that reassigning
the attorney advisor would constitute whistleblower reprisal and that he had made
the same disclosure to the SWPA Administrator. Id. In so finding, she relied on
a text message from the appellant’s supervisor to the appellant regarding his
conversation with the SWPA Administrator, stating, in part, “Hopefully he will
choose wisely.” ID at 23 (quoting IAF, Tab 1 at 67). In addition, she considered
a memorandum drafted by the appellant’s supervisor reflecting that he advised the
SWPA Administrator on June 2, 2017, that he should not reassign the attorney
advisor because reassignment could qualify as an adverse action and retaliation
for her disclosure. ID at 23-24 (citing IAF, Tab 26 at 36). Thus, she concluded
that the appellant’s supervisor proposed to suspend him for 14 days because of
his misconduct and not because of any retaliatory motive. ID at 23-24.
      On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in
relying on the text message to find that his supervisor did not have a retaliatory
motive because the text message does not establish that his supervisor informed
the SWPA Administrator that he opposed the reassignment.           PFR File, Tab 1
at 10. We agree with the administrative judge that the text message supports a
finding that the appellant’s supervisor agreed with the appellant’s disclosure and
did not have a hostile reaction to it.       The appellant also argues that the
administrative judge erred in relying on his supervisor’s memorandum because he
drafted it 10 days after the meeting in question and only after he met with human
resources. Id. at 10-11. We likewise find no merit to this argument. First, we
note that the appellant does not argue, or provide any evidence to suggest, that his
supervisor mispresented what was said at the meeting with the SWPA
Administrator, and we find no basis to conclude that he did. See Fry v. Office of
Personnel Management, 110 M.S.P.R. 649, ¶ 17 (2009) (observing that public
officials are presumed to do their jobs properly and in good faith). Second, we

n.9. The parties have not challenged this finding on review, PFR File, Tabs 1, 3, and
we discern no basis to disturb it.
                                                                                   7

find   that   the   unrebutted,   routinely   made    memorandum      is   probative
notwithstanding the fact that the appellant’s supervisor drafted it 10 days after the
meeting in question and after meeting with human resources. See Borninkhof v.
Department of Justice, 5 M.S.P.R. 77, 83-87 (1981) (setting forth the relevant
factors for assessing the probative value of hearsay evidence).
       The appellant also appears to argue on review that the administrative judge
should have found retaliatory motive because his disclosure was highly critical of
the agency’s conduct.      PFR File, Tab 1 at 10.       We agree and modify the
administrative judge’s analysis on the second Carr factor accordingly. The Board
has found that “[t]hose responsible for the agency’s performance overall may well
be motivated to retaliate even if they are not directly implicated by the
disclosures . . . as the criticism reflects on them in their capacities as managers
and employees.” Wilson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 7, ¶ 65
(quoting Whitmore v. Department of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2012)); Smith v. Department of the Army, 2022 MSPB 4, ¶¶ 28-29 (same). Here,
the appellant’s disclosure concerned potential whistleblower reprisal by the
SWPA Administrator.        Thus, while the appellant’s criticism of the SWPA
Administrator’s planned action may not have directly implicated the appellant’s
supervisor, it nonetheless cast the SWPA Administrator, and thus the agency, in a
critical light.   See Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1370-71 (finding motive to retaliate
because the appellant’s criticisms “cast [the agency], and, by implication all of
the responsible [agency] officials, in a highly critical light by calling into
question the propriety and honesty of their official conduct”).. In light of the
foregoing, we modify the initial decision to find that the record reflects a slight
retaliatory motive in connection with the appellant’s proposed 14-day suspension.
       In her consideration of the third Carr factor, the administrative judge found
that the appellant’s proffered comparator—a supervisory GS-15 Program
Manager with the same supervisor as the appellant who received only a reprimand
for failing to take action upon learning that a subordinate had discriminated
                                                                                  8

against another employee—was not similarly situated. ID at 24-25; IAF, Tab 26
at 12, 111, Tab 38 at 21-22. In so finding, the administrative judge explained
that, unlike the appellant, the other supervisor had not been counseled regarding
similar misconduct in the past, the events in question occurred several years prior
to the discipline, and he had been successful in all other aspects. Id. On review,
the appellant argues that the administrative judge took an overly restrictive view
of the third Carr factor and erred in finding that the other supervisor was not
similarly situated. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-10. We agree.
      Our reviewing court has held that, under Carr, the requirement that
comparator employees be “similarly situated” does not require “virtual identity”
and that “[d]ifferences in kinds and degrees of conduct between otherwise
similarly situated persons within an agency can and should be accounted for.”
Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1373.     Accordingly, we find that the appellant and the
other GS-15 Program Manager at the SWPA, who share a supervisor and
supervisory status, are similarly situated. See id. (finding two supervisors within
the same branch of the same department to be “similarly situated from an
employment position and responsibility perspective”). As discussed in the initial
decision, however, there are differentiating factors here that explain the
difference in treatment, including the nature of the misconduct and the fact that,
unlike the appellant, the other supervisor was not counseled regarding similar
misconduct in the past. ID at 24-25. Thus, we find that this comparator evidence
does not weigh against the agency.       See Chavez v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 120 M.S.P.R. 285, ¶ 34 (2013) (finding that the comparator employee’s
deficiencies were not sufficiently similar to the reasons for the appellant’s
termination to provide persuasive evidence regarding Carr factor three).
      As the administrative judge correctly found, there is no other evidence in
the record regarding the treatment of similarly situated comparators. ID at 25. If
either or both of the first two Carr factors do not support a finding that the
agency would have taken the same personnel action absent the disclosure or
                                                                                      9

protected activity, the agency’s failure to present evidence of the third Carr
factor may prevent it from carrying its overall burden. Smith v. Department of
the Army, 2022 MSPB 4, ¶¶ 26-30; see also Miller v. Department of Justice,
842 F.3d 1252, 1259-63 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, we are left with the firm belief
that the agency would have taken the same action in the absence of the
appellant’s protected disclosure based on the strength of the evidence in support
of its action and the absence of a sufficient motive to retaliate against him.
Accordingly, the appellant’s request for corrective action remains denied.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.     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.
      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

7
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions to provide a comprehensive
summary of all available review options. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot
advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                       10

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
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
                                                                                11

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:
                         Office of Federal Operations
                  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                               P.O. Box 77960
                          Washington, D.C. 20013
                                                                                12

      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 you wish to challenge the Board’s rulings on your whistleblower claims
only, excluding all other issues , 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.        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).
      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
                                                                           13

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:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.