Court Opinion

ID: 9964290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 17:00:44.596342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:16.928496
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MANUEL MELENDEZ,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          AT-0752-22-0630-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: April 26, 2024
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Daniel Patrick Meyer , Esquire, and Michael R. Goldstein , Esquire,
             Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

           Bobbie Garrison , Esquire, Doral, Florida, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     sustained his removal.      For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the
     appellant’s petition for review and REVERSE the initial decision. The removal
     action is NOT SUSTAINED.

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2        Prior to his removal, the appellant held the position of International
     Security Assistance Program Manager, GS-0301-13, with U.S. Southern
     Command (USSOUTHCOM), Strategy, Policy, and Plans Directorate, Security
     Cooperation Division. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 15. On December 14,
     2021, the agency appointed an Investigating Officer, pursuant to Army
     Regulation 15-6, to conduct an informal investigation into the facts and
     circumstances surrounding an informal complaint alleging that the appellant
     “engaged in behavior tantamount to sexual harassment.” IAF, Tab 12 at 49-53.
     The Investigating Officer issued a final report of investigation (ROI) on March 4,
     2022. Id. at 25-192.
¶3        On May 23, 2022, the Director of Strategy, Policy, and Plans notified the
     appellant that he was proposing his removal based on a charge of Conduct
     Unbecoming a Federal Employee, supported by six specifications. IAF, Tab 5
     at 56-60. The specifications were based on incidents described in the ROI, but
     the proposal did not contain an allegation that the appellant engaged in sexual
     harassment, nor did it make any reference to the legal standards applicable to a
     sexual harassment charge. Id. In July 2022, the Director rescinded the proposal
     notice and issued a new proposal, which designated a different deciding official
     but was otherwise unchanged from the original version.      Id. at 34-38, 61-166.
     The appellant provided a written reply. 2 IAF, Tab 6.
¶4        After considering the appellant’s reply, the deciding official, the
     USSOUTHCOM Chief of Staff, issued a decision sustaining five of the six
     specifications and approving the penalty of removal. IAF, Tab 5 at 16-33. The
     deciding official personally completed an agency-supplied Douglas factors
     worksheet in support of his penalty determination.        Id. at 21-30; Hearing

     2
       Prior to his reply, the appellant obtained a redacted copy of the ROI through a
     Freedom of Information Act request. IAF, Tab 10 at 72-251, 355.
                                                                                      3

     Recording (HR), Track 6 (testimony of deciding official).      The appellant was
     removed effective August 26, 2022. Id. at 15.
¶5         The appellant filed a timely appeal with the Board contesting the charge and
     penalty and raising affirmative defenses of harmful procedural error, denial of
     due process, and discrimination based on national origin.      IAF, Tabs 1, 10.
     Following a hearing, the administrative judge sustained the charge, including the
     five specifications that had been sustained by the deciding official. IAF, Tab 19,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 3-11.   The administrative judge further found that the
     appellant had not established his affirmative defenses. ID at 12-17. Finally, the
     administrative judge found that the deciding official had properly considered the
     relevant Douglas factors and that the penalty of removal was within the bounds of
     reasonableness. ID at 17-20. The appellant filed a petition for review, in which
     he again argues that the agency committed harmful error and denied him due
     process. 3   Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.      The agency has filed a
     response, to which the appellant has replied. PFR File, Tabs 3-4.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6         When an agency intends to rely on aggravating factors as the basis for the
     imposition of a penalty, such factors should be included in the advance notice of
     adverse action so that the employee will have a fair opportunity to respond to
     those factors before the deciding official.     Lopes v. Department of the Navy,
     116 M.S.P.R. 470, ¶ 5 (2011).     If an employee has not been given notice of
     aggravating factors, an ex parte communication with the deciding official
     regarding such factors may constitute a constitutional due process violation
     because it potentially deprives the employee of notice of all the evidence being
     used against him and the opportunity to respond to it.      Ward v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2011).       As our reviewing court has
     explained, “[t]here is no constitutionally relevant distinction between ex parte
     3
       The appellant does not contest the administrative judge’s findings regarding his
     discrimination claim.
                                                                                       4

     communications relating to the underlying charge and those relating to the
     penalty.”   Id.   Furthermore, the Board has found no basis for distinguishing
     between ex parte information provided to the deciding official and information
     personally known by the deciding official if the information was considered in
     reaching the decision and not previously disclosed to the appellant. See Lopes,
     116 M.S.P.R. 470, ¶ 10.
¶7        Here, the deciding official indicated on the Douglas factors worksheet that
     the agency’s table of penalties recommended removal for a second or third
     offense of sexual harassment/assault, which he identified as the most closely
     related charge.   IAF, Tab 5 at 26 (factor 7).    He testified that while he had
     reviewed the entire table, which includes separate recommendations for sexual
     harassment and the actual charge of conduct unbecoming, the sustained
     misconduct nonetheless “smelled” to him like sexual harassment. HR, Track 6;
     see IAF, Tab 5 at 184, 191. However, the agency did not inform the appellant in
     its notice of proposed removal that it would consider the recommended penalty
     for a charge other than those set forth in the notice itself. Nor was the appellant
     on notice that he would be disciplined for a second or third offense of any charge,
     given his undisputed lack of prior discipline.
¶8        Accordingly, we find that the deciding official considered ex parte
     information in making his penalty determination.        However, such ex parte
     information will only violate an employee’s right to due process when it
     introduces new and material evidence. Ward, 634 F.3d at 1279; Stone v. Federal
     Deposit Insurance Corporation, 179 F.3d 1368, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1999).            To
     determine whether the deciding official’s consideration of ex parte information
     constituted a due process violation, we must inquire whether the ex parte
     communication is “so substantial and so likely to cause prejudice that no
     employee can fairly be required to be subjected to a deprivation of property under
     such circumstances.” Ward, 634 F.3d at 1279 (citations omitted). The Board will
     consider the following factors, among others, to determine whether ex parte
                                                                                          5

      information is constitutionally impermissible:         (1) whether the ex parte
      information merely introduces cumulative information or new information;
      (2) whether the employee knew of the error and had a chance to respond to it; and
      (3) whether the ex parte information was of the type likely to result in undue
      pressure upon the deciding official to rule in a particular manner. Id.
¶9          Here, the deciding official’s reliance on the recommended penalty for a
      charge other than one set forth in the notice of proposed removal cannot fairly be
      deemed cumulative or immaterial to his decision. See Jenkins v. Environmental
      Protection Agency, 118 M.S.P.R. 161, ¶ 12 (2012). Moreover, in a situation like
      this, when the deciding official has admitted that the ex parte information
      influenced his penalty determination, the information in question is clearly
      material. Howard v. Department of the Air Force, 118 M.S.P.R. 106, ¶ 6 (2012).
      We further find that, because the agency omitted this information from the notice
      of proposed removal, the appellant was unaware that the deciding official would
      consider it and had no chance to respond before the deciding official issued his
      decision. With respect to whether the information resulted in undue pressure on
      the deciding official, the absence of such pressure is less relevant when, as in this
      case, the deciding official admits that the information influenced his penalty
      determination. Id. (citing Ward, 634 F.3d at 1280 n.2). In sum, we conclude that
      the deciding official’s consideration of aggravating factors without the appellant’s
      knowledge was “so likely to cause prejudice that no employee can fairly be
      required to be subjected to a deprivation of property under such circumstances.”
      Stone, 179 F.3d at 1377.
¶10         Because the agency violated the appellant’s due process guarantee to notice,
      the agency’s error cannot be excused as harmless, and the appellant’s removal
      must be cancelled. Lopes, 116 M.S.P.R. 470, ¶ 13. The appellant may not be
      removed unless and until he is afforded a “new constitutionally correct removal
      procedure.” Ward, 634 F.3d at 1280; Jenkins, 118 M.S.P.R. 161, ¶ 12; Lopes,
      116 M.S.P.R. 470, ¶ 13. Accordingly, we reverse the initial decision and do not
                                                                                          6

      sustain the removal action. Given this result, we do not reach the appellant’s
      remaining arguments.

                                            ORDER
¶11         We ORDER the agency to rescind the removal action and restore the
      appellant effective April 26, 2022. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts,
      726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no later
      than 20 days after the date of this decision.
¶12         We also 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.
¶13         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).
¶14         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
      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).
                                                                                            7

¶15         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 timely 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 OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
            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

      4
        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

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.
      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
                                                                                    9

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
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
                                                                                     10

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. 5 The court of appeals must receive your

5
   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
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 appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                11

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
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.
                                                                       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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     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