Court Opinion

ID: 9555752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 06:00:16.293375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:01.037755
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     WILLIAM D. GODBY,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        CH-1221-21-0147-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: August 14, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           David Torchia, Esquire, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the appellant.

           Matthew O. Kortjohn, Esquire, Dayton, Ohio, for the agency.

           Nicholas Kennedy, Esquire, Akron, Ohio, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     granted in part and denied in part the appellant’s request for corrective action
     under 5 U.S.C. § 1221. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 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 and AFFIRM the initial decision,
     which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
¶2         Under the evidentiary framework of 5 U.S.C. § 1221, the Board first
     determines whether the appellant has established by preponderant evidence 2 that
     he made a protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or engaged in
     protected activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C) or (D).            See
     5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(1); Salerno v. Department of the Interior, 123 M.S.P.R. 230,
     ¶ 5 (2016); 5 C.F.R. § 1209.7(a).       Next, the Board determines whether the
     protected disclosure or protected activity was a contributing factor in the
     personnel action that was threatened, proposed, taken, or not taken. See 5 U.S.C.
     § 1221(e)(1); Salerno, 123 M.S.P.R. 230, ¶ 5; 5 C.F.R. § 1209.7(a).            If the
     respondent makes both of these showings by preponderant evidence, the burden
     of persuasion shifts to the agency to demonstrate by clear and convincing

     2
       Preponderant evidence is the 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 to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).
                                                                                          3

     evidence 3 that it would have threatened, proposed, taken, or not taken the same
     personnel action in the absence of the disclosure or other protected activity. See
     5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(2); Salerno, 123 M.S.P.R. 230, ¶ 5; 5 C.F.R. § 1209.7(b); see
     also Carr v. Social Security Administration, 185 F.3d 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
     1999).
¶3         In determining whether an agency has met its burden by clear and
     convincing evidence, the Board will consider the following factors, which were
     coincidentally first set forth in Carr: (1) the strength of the agency’s evidence in
     support of the personnel 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, 185 F.3d
     at 1323. The Board does not view these factors as discrete elements, each of
     which the agency must prove by clear and convincing evidence, but instead
     weighs the factors together to determine if the evidence is clear and convincing as
     a whole. Elder v. Department of the Air Force, 124 M.S.P.R. 12, ¶ 42 (2016).
     Our reviewing court has further clarified that “[e]vidence only clearly and
     convincingly supports a conclusion when it does so in the aggregate considering
     all the pertinent evidence in the record, and despite the evidence that fairly
     detracts from that conclusion.” 4    Whitmore v. Department of Labor, 680 F.3d
     1353, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

     3
       Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that produces in the
     mind of a trier of fact a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be estab lished.
     5 C.F.R. § 1209.4(e).
     4
       The court made that statement in the course of explaining that Congress imposed a
     heightened burden of proof on the agency to compensate for the “evidentiary
     disadvantages” faced by whistleblowers. Whitmore v. Department of Labor, 680 F.3d
     1353, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see 135 Cong. Rec. H747-48 (daily ed. Mar. 21, 1989)
     (explanatory statement on Senate Amendment S. 20) (explaining that the hi gher burden
     of proof required of the agency “recognizes that when it comes to proving the basis of
     an agency’s decision, the agency controls most of the cards —the drafting of the
     documents supporting the decision, the testimony of witnesses who participate d in the
                                                                                              4

¶4         In its petition for review, the agency contends that the administrative judge
     did not consider all the record evidence, as required under Whitmore. Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. However, as the administrative judge observed, the
     agency made no attempt below to show by clear and convincing evidence that, in
     the absence of the appellant’s whistleblowing, it still would not have selected him
     for the Operations Manager in 2017. 5 Rather than acknowledge its burden of
     proof, the agency instead contended that the burden of proof was on the appellant
     to show that his qualifications were “plainly superior” to that of the selectee.
     Hearing Transcript, Day 3 at 623-24. In effect, the agency waived its opportunity
     to rebut the appellant’s prima facie case of retaliation.
¶5         The agency’s attempt to shift the burden of proof to the appellant is
     unavailing.     On review, the agency argues that evaluating the select ee’s
     qualifications is “especially vital” in individual right of action (IRA) appeals of
     nonselections, because in nonselection cases arising under Title VII of the Civil
     Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 6 a complainant can only prove an illegal hiring
     practice if his qualifications are “plainly superior” to those of the selectee. This
     is so, the agency argues, because “Title VII is not a vehicle for substituting the
     judgment of a court for that of the employer.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 9 (quoting
     Jiminez v. Mary Wash. Coll., 57 F.3d 369, 377 (4th Cir. 1995)).                While the
     agency concedes—as it must—that this case is not governed by Title VII, it

     decision, and the records that could document whether similar personnel actions have
     been taken in other cases”). It is evident that in creating and interpreting the “clear and
     convincing evidence” standard, Congress and the Whitmore court were primarily
     concerned with ensuring that the interests of the whistleblower are protected. See
     Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1368 (observing that the Whistleblower Protection Act “makes
     clear that whistleblowing provides an important public benefit that must be enco uraged
     when necessary by taking away fear of retaliation”).
     5
       Conspicuously, the words “clear and convincing” appear nowhere in the hearing
     transcript or any of the agency’s pleadings below.
     6
      The petition refers to “Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act ,” but we assume this was a
     drafting error.
                                                                                         5

     asserts that “the principles underlying Title VII non-selection case law exist with
     equal force in this appeal” and that by failing to consider the qualifications of the
     selectee, “the Board is substituting its judgment for that of the Agency.” PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 9. However, the agency has not cited any authority to support its
     assertion that Title VII standards should apply in an IRA appeal of a
     nonselection, and we are not aware of any. Rather, the relevant st atute makes it
     clear that in an IRA appeal, the burden lies with the agency to prove by clear and
     convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action in the absence of
     the appellant’s whistleblowing. 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(2). As discussed above, the
     agency did not accept or attempt to meet that burden. Accordingly, we affirm the
     administrative judge’s finding that the appellant is entitled to corrective action
     with respect to his 2017 nonselection.

                                           ORDER
¶6         We ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back pay,
     interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel
     Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this
     decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s
     efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to
     provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the
     Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due,
     and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed
     amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision.
¶7         We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing
     when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has
     taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask
     the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶8         No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully
     carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement
                                                                                     6

     with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant
     believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition
     should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not
     fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of
     any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
¶9        For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
     Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and
     Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation
     necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision
     are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timel y provide DFAS or NFC with all
     documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the
     Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be
     made within the 60-day period set forth above.

                     NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                           YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                          ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
          You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
     fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at Title 5 of
     the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
     regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
     you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
     and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
     You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
     the initial decision on your appeal.

                  NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
              YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST CONSEQUENTIAL AND/OR
                        COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
           You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your consequential
     damages, including medical costs incurred, travel expenses, and any other
                                                                                      7

reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages. To be paid, you must meet
the requirements set out at 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214(g) or 1221(g). The regulations may
be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202 and 1201.204.
      In addition, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012
authorized the award of compensatory damages including interest, reasonable
expert witness fees, and costs, 5 U.S.C. § 1214(g)(2), which you may be entitled
to receive.
      If you believe you are entitled to these damages, you must file a motion for
consequential damages and/or compensatory damages WITHIN 60 CALENDAR
DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. You must file your motion with the
office that issued the initial decision on your appeal.

                           NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
      A copy of the decision will be referred to the Special Counsel “to
investigate and take appropriate action under [5 U.S.C.] section 1215,” based on
the determination that “there is reason to believe that a current employee may
have committed a prohibited personnel practice” under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). 5 U.S.C. § 1221(f)(3). Please note
that while any Special Counsel investigation related to this decision is pending,
“no disciplinary action shall be taken against any employee for any alleged
prohibited activity under investigation or for any related activity without the
approval of the Special Counsel.” 5 U.S.C. § 1214(f).

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7
      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).

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. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                        8

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 be low 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
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.
                                                                                   9

      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 s uch action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
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 bef ore 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 c ondition, 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
                                                                                10

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

      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 your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section
2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i),
(B), (C), or (D),” 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. 8   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

8
  The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
                                                                                      11

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
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.

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeal s of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                       12

      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:                          /s/ for
                                        Jennifer Everling
                                        Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
                                 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
                                           Civilian Pay Operations

                          DFAS BACK PAY CHECKLIST
The following documentation is required by DFAS Civilian Pay to compute and pay back pay
pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805. Human resources/local payroll offices should use the following
checklist to ensure a request for payment of back pay is complete. Missing documentation may
substantially delay the processing of a back pay award. More information may be found at:
https://wss.apan.org/public/DFASPayroll/Back%20Pay%20Process/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NOTE: Attorneys’ fees or other non-wage payments (such as damages) are paid by
vendor pay, not DFAS Civilian Pay.

☐ 1) Submit a “SETTLEMENT INQUIRY - Submission” Remedy Ticket. Please identify the
       specific dates of the back pay period within the ticket comments.

Attach the following documentation to the Remedy Ticket, or provide a statement in the ticket
comments as to why the documentation is not applicable:

☐ 2) Settlement agreement, administrative determination, arbitrator award, or order.

☐ 3) Signed and completed “Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay”.

☐ 4) All required SF50s (new, corrected, or canceled). ***Do not process online SF50s
       until notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 5) Certified timecards/corrected timecards. ***Do not process online timecards until
       notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 6) All relevant benefit election forms (e.g. TSP, FEHB, etc.).

☐ 7) Outside earnings documentation. Include record of all amounts earned by the employee
       in a job undertaken during the back pay period to replace federal employment.
       Documentation includes W-2 or 1099 statements, payroll documents/records, etc. Also,
       include record of any unemployment earning statements, workers’ compensation,
       CSRS/FERS retirement annuity payments, refunds of CSRS/FERS employee premiums,
       or severance pay received by the employee upon separation.

Lump Sum Leave Payment Debts: When a separation is later reversed, there is no authority
under 5 U.S.C. § 5551 for the reinstated employee to keep the lump sum annual leave payment
they may have received. The payroll office must collect the debt from the back pay award. The
annual leave will be restored to the employee. Annual leave that exceeds the annual leave
ceiling will be restored to a separate leave account pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805(g).
NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES
Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process
payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as ordered by
the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts.
1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise information
   describing what to do in accordance with decision.
2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration:
       a.   Employee name and social security number.
       b.   Detailed explanation of request.
       c.   Valid agency accounting.
       d.   Authorized signature (Table 63).
       e.   If interest is to be included.
       f.   Check mailing address.
       g.   Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached.
       h.   Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to be
            collected (if applicable).
Attachments to AD-343
1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday
   Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement (if applicable).
2. Copies of SF-50s (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and amounts.
3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency.
4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address to
   return monies.
5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)
6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of the
   type of leave to be charged and number of hours.
7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual Leave
   to be paid.
NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay Period and
required data in 1-7 above.
The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump Sum
Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.)
       a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.
       b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided.
       c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable.
If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s
Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.