Court Opinion

ID: 9373068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:28.273554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.288902
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                          MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     TOBY BURKE,                                       DOCKET NUMBER
                           Appellant,                  SF-0752-17-0334-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,                       DATE: January 19, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Toby Burke, Kenai, Alaska, pro se.

           Rachel Wieghaus, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

           Kevin D. Mack, Esquire, Sacramento, California, for the agency.

                                             BEFORE

                                 Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                   Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                    Tristan L. Leavitt, Member
                               Member Limon recused himself and
                       did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

                                         FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his involuntary resignation appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally,

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 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 materi al 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 to VACATE the
     administrative judge’s finding regarding the precipitating event of the appellant’s
     resignation, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         On review, the appellant submits his “rebuttal” to the initial decision and
     largely   repeats    his   arguments     below     that   he    was    “over-worked[,]
     undercompensated” and subjected to “unequitable and illegal” treatment by his
     supervisor. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 2 at 5. 2 The appellant argues
     that the initial decision was based on “factual errors and statements taken
     completely out of context” in the agency’s submissions below , but he maintains
     that these errors are “too numerous to document.” Id. at 9. He argues that the
     written format of the Board appeal was prohibitively time consuming , and he

     2
       Approximately 11 hours after filing his petition for review, PFR File, Tab 1, the
     appellant filed a corrected petition for review “to replace [his] earlier petiti on which
     had more than a few spelling and grammatical errors as well as irregular spacing and
     unintentional word omissions and additions that interfered with readability and
     comprehension,” PFR File, Tab 2 at 4. The appellant maintained that there “were n o
     substantive changes only mechanical corrections” in his corrected petition for review.
     Id. We have considered both petitions and have determined that neither meet the
     standard for granting a petition for review under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115.
                                                                                           3

     requests that the parties and the administrative judge appear in person so that he
     can “dismantle” the agency’s arguments and the administrative judge’s “faulty
     analysis and erroneous decision.” Id. The appellant contests the administrative
     judge’s finding that a reasonable person would not have felt compelled to resign
     under the circumstances he set forth regarding his last 10 years of Federal
     employment, particularly concerning the agency’s alleged advancement of
     underperforming employees over him and failure to investigate his complaints
     against his supervisor’s general mismanagement and failure to pay him overtime.
     Id. at 5-6.
¶3         As      the   administrative   judge   correctly   determined,   the   appellant’s
     contentions that he was overworked, treated less favorably than other employees
     regarding advancement opportunities, and given unfair work assignments by his
     supervisor do not evince the type of intolerable working conditions that deprive
     an individual of a meaningful choice and would compel a reasonable person in the
     appellant’s position to resign.      See Vitale v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     107 M.S.P.R. 501, ¶ 20 (2007); Miller v. Department of Defense, 85 M.S.P.R.
     310, ¶ 32 (2000); Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 15, Initial Decision (ID) at 8-10.
     The administrative judge erred, however, to the extent that he weighed the
     evidence at the jurisdictional stage of the appeal in finding that the “precipitating
     event” in the appellant’s decision to resign was the agency’s refusal to grant him
     a 5-month leave of absence on short notice. ID at 12; see Ferdon v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 60 M.S.P.R. 325, 329 (1994) (finding that, although the Board may
     consider the agency’s documentary submissions in determining whether the
     appellant has made a nonfrivolous allegation, to the extent that the agency’s
     evidence constitutes mere factual contradiction of the appellant’s otherwise
     adequate prima facie showing of jurisdiction, the administrative judge may not
     weigh evidence and resolve conflicting assertions of the parties). Therefore, we
     vacate that finding. Nevertheless, we have considered the extensive allegations in
     the appellant’s jurisdictional response, from alleged problems with the agency
                                                                                             4

     dating back more than 20 years before his resignation to the circumstances
     surrounding his requested leave of absence, and we find that he has failed to
     make a nonfrivolous allegation 3 that he lacked a meaningful choice in his
     resignation and that the agency’s wrongful actions deprived him of that choice.
     IAF, Tab 5; see Bean v. U.S. Postal Service, 120 M.S.P.R. 397, ¶ 8 (2013).
     Because the appellant has not presented nonfrivolous allegations of Board
     jurisdiction, he is not entitled to a jurisdictional hearing.              See Ferdon,
     60 M.S.P.R. at 329.
¶4         The appellant also asserts on review that he suffered “heart pains from
     chronic lack of sleep and the unrelenting stress from work” prior to his alleged
     involuntary resignation. PFR File, Tab 2 at 6. He argues that he had to “take a
     break” because he feared that he would have a heart attack. Id. In this regard,
     the appellant is expanding on his general claims regarding “health concerns” and
     “stress” in his jurisdictional response. IAF, Tab 5 at 40. Although a resignation
     may be rendered involuntary when an agency improperly denies an employee’s
     request for a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled him to continue
     in his position, the appellant made no such allegation before the administrative
     judge below on or review.       See Hosozawa v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     113 M.S.P.R. 110, ¶ 7 (2010). Although the administrative judge did not address
     the appellant’s vague assertions about health concerns directly in the initial
     decision, we find that these assertions provide no basis for Board jurisdiction
     over his appeal. See Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281,
     282 (1984) (explaining that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a
     party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an initial decision).
¶5         Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and affirm as modified the
     initial decision.

     3
       A nonfrivolous allegation is an assertion that, if proven, could establish the matter at
     issue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(s).
                                                                                      5

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
      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 an d
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
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).

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.
                                                                                         6

      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
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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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
                                                                                  7

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

      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
                                                                                      8

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
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

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.
                                                                             9

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