Court Opinion

ID: 9383911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 15:01:20.356516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.938493
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1596   Document: 34     Page: 1   Filed: 03/14/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                JOHN KANANOWICZ,
                     Petitioner

                            v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                       2022-1596
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. PH-1221-22-0056-W-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: March 14, 2023
                ______________________

    JOHN KANANOWICZ, Hampton, NH, pro se.

     CALVIN M. MORROW, Office of the General Counsel,
 United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by KATHERINE
 MICHELLE SMITH.
                  ______________________

 Before REYNA, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
Case: 22-1596     Document: 34     Page: 2    Filed: 03/14/2023

 2                                        KANANOWICZ   v. MSPB

     John Kananowicz petitions for review of a Merit Sys-
 tems Protection Board decision dismissing his whistle-
 blower retaliation claim against the Department of Labor
 for lack of jurisdiction. Kananowicz v. Dep’t of Lab.,
 No. PH-1221-22-0056-W-1, 2022 WL 595807 (Feb. 24,
 2022) (Board Decision). Because we find that Mr. Kanan-
 owicz has not nonfrivously alleged that he made a pro-
 tected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A), we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     In February 2021, Mr. Kananowicz’s wife, Monique Ka-
 nanowicz, filed a whistleblower complaint with the Depart-
 ment of Labor’s (DOL) Occupational Safety & Health
 Administration (OSHA) against her former employer, Core
 Physicians, LLC. 1 Pet’r’s Br. 2. Ms. Kananowicz elected to
 participate in alternative dispute resolution (ADR or medi-
 ation). Pet’r’s Br. 4. She also requested that Mr. Kanan-
 owicz act as her designated representative in resolving her
 dispute. Pet’r’s Br. 3.
     Mr. Kananowicz has been employed by OSHA for more
 than a decade, first as a whistleblower investigator and
 then as a regional alternative dispute coordinator for Re-
 gion I. Pet’r’s Br. 2. He sought guidance on whether he
 could represent his wife in her OSHA proceedings from his
 supervisor, Kristen Rubino, and, at her suggestion, from
 the Office of the Solicitor of the DOL. Pet’r’s Br. 3, 5. Ms.

     1    Because this appeal concerns whether the Board
 properly dismissed Mr. Kananowicz’s appeal for lack of ju-
 risdiction, we, like the Board, treat Mr. Kananowicz’s alle-
 gations as true for purposes of this appeal. See Smolinski
 v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 23 F.4th 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
 We cite to Mr. Kananowicz’s brief when summarizing his
 allegations because neither party included Mr. Kanan-
 owicz’s initial appeal to the Board in their filings before
 this court.
Case: 22-1596     Document: 34      Page: 3    Filed: 03/14/2023

 KANANOWICZ   v. MSPB                                         3

 Rubino approved the representation so long as he did not
 represent Ms. Kananowicz during work hours, use his gov-
 ernment issued cell phone, or voluntarily disclose his
 OSHA employment or title. Pet’r’s Br. 3. Ms. Rubino also
 agreed to enter Ms. Kananowicz’s complaint in the Region
 VIII office, rather than the Region I office, to avoid any per-
 ceived conflict of interest pertaining to Mr. Kananowicz’s
 role in the Region I office. Pet’r’s Br. 3. A DOL attorney
 conveyed that no OSHA policy or ethics rule prevented Mr.
 Kananowicz from representing his wife but suggested that
 she may get a better outcome with different representation.
 Pet’r’s Br. 5. He proceeded to represent her after she failed
 to find adequate alternative representation. Pet’r’s Br. 5.
 When a Region VIII Investigator later asked Ms. Kanan-
 owicz whether Mr. Kananowicz was employed by OSHA,
 Ms. Kananowicz confirmed her husband’s employment sta-
 tus. Pet’r’s Br. 4.
     On April 16, 2021, Mr. Kananowicz took a day off from
 work to represent his wife in the mediation, which was me-
 diated by an OSHA Region VIII ADR Coordinator. Pet’r’s
 Br. 5–6; App. 22–23. 2 A few hours into the mediation, an
 OSHA Region VIII Regional Supervisory Investigator
 halted the mediation session, notified Mr. Kananowicz
 “that the mediation was cancelled,” and told Mr. Kanan-
 owicz to contact Ms. Rubino. Pet’r’s Br. 6. When Ms. Ru-
 bino confirmed that she halted the session, Mr.
 Kananowicz told her that halting the mediation violated
 his wife’s constitutional right to participate in the OSHA
 complaint process, her right to designate her own repre-
 sentative in mediation, and her right under the Adminis-
 trative Procedure Act (APA) to participate in mediation.

     2   App. refers to materials attached to Mr. Kanan-
 owicz’s informal opening brief, ECF No. 19. Because these
 documents lack separate pagination, the citations refer to
 the ECF page number.
Case: 22-1596    Document: 34     Page: 4    Filed: 03/14/2023

 4                                       KANANOWICZ   v. MSPB

 Pet’r’s Br. 7. He also conveyed his belief that OSHA’s in-
 tervention was an abuse of the agency’s authority and vio-
 lated its own ADR Program rules and 29 C.F.R.
 § 1977.15(a). Pet’r’s Br. 7–8, 10. A few weeks later, Ms.
 Rubino sent Mr. Kananowicz a letter of reprimand for Mr.
 Kananowicz’s allegedly disrespectful conduct during the
 April 16 phone call. Pet’r’s Br. 8; App. 29–31.
     Mr. Kananowicz filed a complaint with the Office of
 Special Counsel alleging that the letter of reprimand con-
 stituted retaliation for his disclosures during the April 16
 phone call. Board Decision, 2022 WL 595807. After the
 Office of Special Counsel closed its investigation, Mr. Ka-
 nanowicz filed an Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeal
 with the Board. Id.
      The administrative judge found that the Board lacked
 jurisdiction to consider Mr. Kananowicz’s appeal. Id. Spe-
 cifically, he found that Mr. Kananowicz had not made any
 disclosures protected under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) during
 the April 16 phone call. Id. The administrative judge
 found no provision in the Directive’s policy guidance or in
 the cited regulation that Mr. Kananowicz could reasonably
 believe the agency violated by terminating the mediation
 early. Id. The administrative judge also rejected Mr. Ka-
 nanowicz’s abuse of authority assertion because Mr. Ka-
 nanowicz knew of the possibility of a conflict of interest
 based on his representation of his wife, such that stopping
 the mediation to address the potential issue could not be
 arbitrary or capricious. Id. Finally, the administrative
 judge noted that Mr. Kananowicz did not allege that he or
 his wife were told that the mediation would not resume;
 indeed, the agency later told Ms. Kananowicz that a new
 mediator from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Ser-
 vice would resume the mediation. Id. Because Mr. Kanan-
 owicz failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that he had
 made a disclosure protected under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8),
 the administrative judge concluded that the Board lacked
 jurisdiction. Id.
Case: 22-1596     Document: 34     Page: 5    Filed: 03/14/2023

 KANANOWICZ   v. MSPB                                        5

     The administrative judge’s initial decision became the
 Board’s final decision under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113, and Mr.
 Kananowicz appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction
 to review the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction un-
 der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                         DISCUSSION
     We review the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
 de novo. Smolinski v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 23 F.4th 1345,
 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
      The Board has jurisdiction over Individual Right of Ac-
 tion appeals arising under 5 U.S.C. § 1221 where the peti-
 tioner makes a nonfrivolous allegation (1) that he made
 disclosures protected by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or engaged in
 protected activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i) or
 (B)–(D); and (2) that those disclosures or protected activi-
 ties were a contributing factor in the agency’s decision to
 take a personnel action defined by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A).
 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(1)). Under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), the pe-
 titioner must have had a reasonable belief that his or her
 disclosures “evidence[d] (i) any violation of any law, rule,
 or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste
 of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific
 danger to public health or safety.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A).
 “A belief is reasonable if a disinterested observer with
 knowledge of the essential facts could reach the same con-
 clusion.” Smolinski, 23 F.4th at 1350 (citing Lachance v.
 White, 174 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
     Mr. Kananowicz alleges that the agency’s letter of rep-
 rimand constituted retaliation for his April 16 disclosures.
 See Pet’r’s Br. 8–9. Thus, the issue is whether Mr. Kanan-
 owicz had a reasonable belief that his disclosures during
 the April 16 phone call with Ms. Rubino evidenced “any vi-
 olation of any law, rule, or regulation” or “an abuse of au-
 thority” under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A). In his briefing
 before this court, Mr. Kananowicz alleges that he made five
 protected disclosures during that call, all stemming from
Case: 22-1596     Document: 34      Page: 6    Filed: 03/14/2023

 6                                        KANANOWICZ    v. MSPB

 the early termination of the mediation session and alleged
 denial of Ms. Kananowicz’s choice of representative: (1) vi-
 olation of OSHA Instruction, Directive Number CPL 02-03-
 008; (2) violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1977.15(a); (3) abuse of au-
 thority; (4) violation of the APA; and (5) violation of Ms.
 Kananowicz’s constitutional due process rights. Pet’r’s Br.
 7, 10–11.
      Before we look to Mr. Kananowicz’s alleged disclosures,
 it is helpful to clarify the exact nature of the early termina-
 tion of the April 16 mediation session, as we adjudge the
 reasonableness of a belief from the perspective of a “disin-
 terested observer with knowledge of the essential facts.”
 See Smolinski, 23 F.4th at 1350. According to Mr. Kanan-
 owicz, the agency halted the April 16 mediation early, but
 OSHA officials later took steps to provide a different medi-
 ator—one unaffiliated with OSHA and lacking any poten-
 tial conflict of interest—to continue mediation. Pet’r’s Br.
 13 (explaining that OSHA responded to Ms. Kananowicz
 “claiming Federal Mediation Conciliatory Service (FMCS)
 would be resuming the mediation” but that “Respondent
 was not in agreement to continue ADR after the mediation
 on April 16, 2021, had been abruptly stopped by OSHA”);
 see also S. App. 21. 3 Thus, the agency did not deny Ms.
 Kananowicz an opportunity to mediate. Nor did the agency
 deny Ms. Kananowicz the opportunity to be represented by
 Mr. Kananowicz. Pet’r’s Br. 13. (“Appellant asserts that at
 no time did Ms. Rubino or OSHA instruct him or notify him
 verbally or in writing that he was unable to act as the des-
 ignated representative[.]”).
     We agree with the Board that Mr. Kananowicz did not
 make a protected disclosure of a violation of OSHA Di-
 rective Number CPL 02-03-008 under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)
 because he could not have reasonably believed that the

     3   S. App. refers to the supplemental appendix at-
 tached to the Respondent’s Brief, ECF No. 25.
Case: 22-1596     Document: 34     Page: 7    Filed: 03/14/2023

 KANANOWICZ   v. MSPB                                        7

 OSHA Directive was violated by the early termination of
 the April 16 mediation session. Mr. Kananowicz has not
 pointed to any specific part of the Directive he claims the
 agency violated when it interrupted the mediation, see
 Pet’r’s Br. 7, and, on our review of the Directive, we can
 find no applicable provision. In fact, the Directive gives
 OSHA the option to terminate mediation “at the discretion
 of the [Regional Administrator] or his/her designee.”
 OSHA Instruction, Directive Number CPL 02-03-008 at 7.
 The Directive also repeatedly emphasizes the importance
 of the mediator’s impartiality and directly addresses con-
 flicts of interest with the mediator. Id. at 10. The Directive
 specifies that the mediator “should avoid conducting ADR
 where there is an actual or potential conflict of interest be-
 tween the [mediator] and one or more parties.” Id. It fur-
 ther provides that the parties may waive a conflict in
 writing, and that “[o]therwise, where a conflict exists, the
 [mediator] will recuse him/herself and an alternative, neu-
 tral OSHA representative will be appointed to carry out
 ADR.” Id. We agree with the administrative judge that
 the Agency did not violate the Directive merely by postpon-
 ing the mediation to address the potential conflict of inter-
 est posed by Mr. Kananowicz’s representation of his wife.
     Similarly, Mr. Kananowicz has not explained how
 OSHA’s early termination of the April 16 mediation session
 violates 29 C.F.R. § 1977.15(a), and we cannot discern any
 potential violation of that regulation. Section 1977.15(a)
 states that “[a] complaint of section 11(c) discrimination
 may be filed by the employee [her]self, or by a representa-
 tive authorized to do so on [her] behalf.” Mr. Kananowicz
 does not allege that he was prevented from filing a § 11(c)
 discrimination complaint on his wife’s behalf. Thus, he
 could not reasonably believe the Agency violated 29 C.F.R.
 § 1977.15(a), and his alleged disclosure of such a purported
 violation cannot be a protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C.
 § 2302(b)(8).
Case: 22-1596     Document: 34      Page: 8     Filed: 03/14/2023

 8                                         KANANOWICZ    v. MSPB

      Mr. Kananowicz’s alleged disclosure of an abuse of au-
 thority similarly fails to rise to the level of a protected dis-
 closure. Although 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) covers disclosure
 of abuses of authority, the statute does not define “abuse of
 authority.” In previous cases, we have applied the Board’s
 definition of “abuse of authority”: “an arbitrary or capri-
 cious exercise of power by a federal official or employee that
 adversely affects the rights of any person or that results in
 personal gain or advantage to himself or to preferred other
 persons.” Smolinski, 23 F.4th at 1351 (quoting Wheeler v.
 Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 88 M.S.P.R. 236, 241 (2001)). We
 have also looked to the definition of “abuse of authority” in
 other whistleblower-protection statutes, such as 41 U.S.C.
 § 4712(g), which defines “abuse of authority” as “an arbi-
 trary and capricious exercise of authority that is incon-
 sistent with the mission of the executive agency
 concerned.” Id. at 1352 (quoting 41 U.S.C. § 4712(g)); see
 also id. (quoting 10 U.S.C. § 2409(g)(6)(1)). Under any of
 these definitions, Mr. Kananowicz has failed to allege that
 he could have reasonably believed that the early termina-
 tion of the April 16 mediation was arbitrary or capricious.
 Even if Mr. Kananowicz did not believe his representation
 rose to the level of an actual conflict of interest, he knew—
 both by virtue of his position as an OSHA dispute coordi-
 nator and through his conversations with his supervisor
 and the Office of the Solicitor—that his position within
 OSHA created at least the potential for a conflict of inter-
 est. Therefore, his alleged disclosure of an abuse of author-
 ity is not a protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)
 because he could not have reasonably believed that the
 early termination of the April 16 mediation session was an
 abuse of authority.
     The administrative judge did not address Mr. Kanan-
 owicz’s claims that he told Ms. Rubino that the agency vio-
 lated the APA and his wife’s constitutional right to due
 process. In its briefing on this appeal, the Board states that
 Mr. Kananowicz failed to present his argument concerning
Case: 22-1596     Document: 34      Page: 9    Filed: 03/14/2023

 KANANOWICZ   v. MSPB                                         9

 the APA to the administrative judge and argues that the
 argument is forfeited on appeal. Resp’t’s Br. 10.
     We have held that arguments not presented to the ad-
 ministrative judge are forfeited. See, e.g., Sistek v. Dep’t of
 Veterans Affs., 955 F.3d 948, 953 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2020). But
 we have discretion to overlook forfeiture. In re Google
 Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
 We elect to do so here. Because we liberally construe the
 pleadings of pro se petitioners, and because neither party
 included Mr. Kananowicz’s filings before the Board in the
 various appendices filed before this court—making it diffi-
 cult to discern what Mr. Kananowicz did or did not present
 to the administrative judge—we will overlook any potential
 forfeiture of his arguments premised on alleged violations
 of the APA and the Constitution. See Durr v. Nicholson,
 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[P]ro se pleadings
 are to be liberally construed.”) (citations omitted); see also
 Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
 (en banc) (superseded by statute on other grounds by Pub.
 L. No. 107–330, § 402(a), 116 Stat. 2820, 2832 (2002)) (“[I]n
 situations where a party appeared pro se before the lower
 court, a court of appeals may appropriately be less strin-
 gent in requiring that the issue have been raised explicitly
 below.”).
     But, as with his other alleged disclosures, we find that
 Mr. Kananowicz’s alleged disclosures of APA and constitu-
 tional violations are not protected disclosures under
 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). Mr. Kananowicz does not explain
 how the early termination of the April 16 mediation session
 could possibly violate either the APA or the constitutional
 guarantee of due process. Nor do we see how it could. As
 we have already explained, Ms. Kananowicz was not de-
 nied an opportunity to participate in mediation—the early
 termination of the April 16 session ended only her oppor-
 tunity to mediate with an OSHA mediator, and OSHA later
 arranged for a mediator unaffiliated with the agency. Nor
 was she ever denied the opportunity to proceed with Mr.
Case: 22-1596   Document: 34     Page: 10    Filed: 03/14/2023

 10                                     KANANOWICZ   v. MSPB

 Kananowicz as her representative. We can discern no pos-
 sible APA or due process violations from these facts. Thus,
 these alleged disclosures are not protected disclosures on
 which Board jurisdiction may be premised.
                        CONCLUSION
     None of Mr. Kananowicz’s five alleged disclosures are
 protected disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). We have
 considered Mr. Kananowicz’s other arguments and find
 them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
                       AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.