Court Opinion

ID: 9402076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 06:00:13.768855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.240739
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JOSE E. ROSARIO-FABREGAS,                       DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       NY-0752-17-0147-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: June 14, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jose E. Rosario-Fabregas, San Juan, Puerto Rico, pro se.

           Elizabeth Moseley and Elizabeth Vavrica, Jacksonville, Florida, for the
             agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his constructive suspension appeal for lack of jurisdiction . On petition
     for review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in construing
     his appeal as a constructive suspension. He further argues, in the alternative, that

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the administrative judge erred in finding that he was not constructively suspended
     because his decision to use leave for the alleged constructive suspension period
     was involuntary and the result of improper agency actions. Generally, we grant
     petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision
     contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an
     erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of
     the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either
     the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required
     procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the
     outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available
     that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record
     closed. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that
     the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting
     the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review . Except as
     expressly MODIFIED by this Final Order to address the time period before
     September 27, 2016, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2        Although the appellant’s arguments do not provide a basis for review, we
     find it necessary to clarify the basis for concluding that the appellant was not
     constructively suspended for a portion of the alleged constructive suspension
     period—the period from September 6-26, 2016. The agency attempted to return
     the appellant to duty on September 6, 2016, after imposing his Board ordered
     30-day suspension. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 26-27, Tab 17 at 7; see
     Rosario-Fabregas v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-13-
     0142-I-2, Final Order, ¶ 49 (July 1, 2016).       The appellant has identified no
     medical documentation showing that his medical condition had changed between
     2012, when the agency last refused to allow him to return to duty because of his
     medical condition, and September 6, 2016. On September 29, 2016, he submitted
     a note, signed on September 27, 2016, from his treating psychiatrist certifying
                                                                                            3

     that he was medically unable to return to duty. IAF, Tab 4 at 162-63. Thus, for
     the period of September 6-26, 2016, the agency’s request effectively was a
     continuation of its previous requests for medical documentation issued in 2011
     and 2012. See Rosario-Fabregas v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 468,
     ¶¶12-19 (2015), aff’d, 833 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
¶3         The Board found nothing improper about the agency’s decision not to return
     the appellant to duty in 2011 and 2012, despite his request to return, until he
     provided additional medical documentation confirming his ability to work with or
     without a reasonable accommodation. 2        Id.   The Board further found that the
     agency’s request for medical documentation was an appropriate response to the
     appellant’s reasonable accommodation request, was consistent with the agency’s
     leave procedures and regulations, and was in compliance with the Americans with
     Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). 3 Id. Even if the appellant
     was no longer a threat, as previously feared, id., ¶ 17, the question of whether his
     ability to perform the essential functions of his job was impaired by his
     psychiatric condition had not been resolved. IAF, Tab 4 at 26-29. We therefore
     find that the agency did not act improperly when it continued to request a medical

     2
       The appellant is collaterally estopped from relitigating issues related to his absences
     in 2011 and 2012 because: (1) they are identical to those at issue here; (2) those issues
     were actually litigated; (3) those issues were necessary to the dismissal of his prior
     constructive suspension appeal; and (4) he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate
     those issues in that action. See Rosario-Fabregas, 122 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶¶8-19; McNeil v.
     Department of Defense, 100 M.S.P.R. 146, ¶ 15 (2005) (setting forth the four factor test
     for determining when it is appropriate to apply the collateral estoppel doctrine).
     3
       A disability-related inquiry or medical examination may be job-related and consistent
     with business necessity, and thereby permissible under the ADAAA, if an employer has
     a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that: (1) an employee’s ability to
     perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical condition; or (2) an
     employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition. Rosario-Fabregas,
     122 M.S.P.R. 468, ¶ 14. Moreover, an agency may request information in order to
     make a decision on a reasonable accommodation request. Id., ¶ 13; 42 U.S.C.
     § 12111(9)(B) (providing that a modified or part-time work schedule is a type of
     reasonable accommodation); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) (same).
                                                                                           4

     certification clarifying the appellant’s ability to return to duty in September 2016,
     and for refusing his return when he failed to provide it.         Id. at 26-29, 87-88,
     146-48.    Rather, as the Board found in the appellant’s compliance matter
     regarding the same alleged failure to return to duty, the agency’s request for
     medical information was reasonable.        Rosario-Fabregas v. Department of the
     Army, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-13-0142-C-1, Initial Decision at 5-7, 10
     (May 11, 2017), aff’d, Order, ¶ 1 (Dec. 5, 2022); see generally Senior v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 85 M.S.P.R. 283, 287-88 (2000) (recognizing that a physical
     inability to perform constitutes a legitimate reason for an agency’s failu re to
     return an appellant to her position after cancellation of an adverse action);
     Connor v. U.S. Postal Service, 50 M.S.P.R. 389, 392-93 (1991) (finding that an
     agency did not violate the Board’s reinstatement order by requiring the appellant
     to undergo a fitness-for-duty exam or submit current medical documentation
     before returning him to duty after a lengthy absence and prior history o f medical
     inability to work).
¶4         Accordingly, the appellant has not shown that he was constructively
     suspended for this or any of the other time periods at issue. The administrative
     judge’s failure to properly address his allegations regarding the time perio d
     before September 27, 2016, in particular is not a basis for review. 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).

                              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

     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.
                                                                                        5

review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of
your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate
forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following
summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not
provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and
the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule
regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of
this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your
claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file
within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your
chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
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
                                                                                    6

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 war rants 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 t he 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. distri ct 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.
                                                                                 7

      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
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
                                                                                      8

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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

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

      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.