Court Opinion

ID: 9373533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:41.627481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.042106
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SPECIAL COUNSEL                                 DOCKET NUMBER
     EX REL. ZERINA SPALDING,                        CB-1208-22-0016-U-1
                    Petitioner,

                  v.
                                                     DATE: July 28, 2022
     DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
                 Agency.

               THIS STAY ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
           Julie R. Figueira, Esquire and Paul David Metcalf, Jr., Esquire,
             Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.

           Corlie McCormick, Jr., Esquire, Crofton, Maryland, for the relator.

           Danae K. Remmert, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                                 Raymond A. Limon, Member

                               ORDER ON STAY REQUEST

¶1         Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(A), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)
     requests that the Board stay Ms. Spalding’s proposed removal for 45 days while
     OSC completes its investigation and legal review of the matter and determines

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     whether to seek corrective action.     For the reasons discussed below, OSC’s
     request is GRANTED.

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2         In its July 25, 2022 stay request, OSC states that it has reasonable grounds
     to believe that on March 16, 2022, the Department of the Treasury (the agency)
     proposed to remove Ms. Spalding from her position with the U.S. Mint in
     violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1) and (b)(8). Stay Request File (SRF), Tab 1
     at 5, 8.   OSC alleges that, on December 13, 2019, Ms. Spalding sent an
     anonymous email to the agency’s Anti-Harassment Coordinator detailing
     instances of what she believed to be unlawful or improper favoritism toward
     white employees. Id. at 6. In the email, a copy of which OSC provides as an
     attachment to its stay request, the author alleged that some white employees at the
     agency received “differing treatment” and that agency leadership would “pick and
     choose what’s equal.” Id. at 21. The author identified examples of “differing
     treatment,” including instances in which two agency employees hung nooses in
     U.S. Mint facilities and one of the employees was not disciplined while the other
     employee was ultimately awarded financial compensation in a settlement
     agreement. Id. The email author also alleged that an employee was given an
     unfair advantage when the employee was permitted to serve in a detail beyond the
     time limit, agency officials ignored ethics violations committed by another
     employee, and certain employees were given favorable teleworking agreements
     and advantages in promotion decisions. Id.
¶3         According to OSC, the email was later forwarded to the agency’s Office of
     the Inspector General (OIG), and the OIG initiated an investigation to determine
     the identity of the email sender. Id. at 7. After OIG received subpoenaed email
     and IP address records linking the anonymous email to Ms. Spalding’s home
     address, Ms. Spalding initially denied knowledge of the anonymous email during
                                                                                       3

     an interview with OIG investigators, but later admitted that she was the author of
     the anonymous email during a subsequent interview in February 2022. Id. at 8.
¶4         OSC states that the agency proposed Ms. Spalding’s removal from Federal
     service on March 16, 2022, based on a charge of lack of candor. Id. According
     to OSC, although the agency initially agreed to mediation through OSC and to
     stay further processing of Ms. Spalding’s removal for 30 days beyond the end of
     mediation, the agency issued a removal decision on July 1, 2022, just 2 weeks
     after mediation ended, and on July 15, 2022, the agency informed OSC that it
     would not extend the stay on the removal decision and removed Ms. Spalding,
     effective immediately. Id. OSC contends that there are reasonable grounds to
     believe that the agency proposed Ms. Spalding’s removal in retaliation for her
     opposition to practices made unlawful by title VII in violation of 5 U.S.C.
     § 2302(b)(1)(A), and in retaliation for her protected whistleblowing disclosures in
     violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), and requests that the Board retroactively stay
     the proposed removal for a period of 45 days. Id. at 1, 9-10, 12-13, 19.

                                        ANALYSIS
¶5         Under 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(A)(i), OSC “may request any member of the
     Merit Systems Protection Board to order a stay of any personnel action for
     45 days if [OSC] determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
     personnel action was taken, or is to be taken, as a result of a prohibited personnel
     practice.”   Such a request “shall” be granted “unless the [Board] member
     determines that, under the facts and circumstances involved, such a stay would
     not be appropriate.” 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(A)(ii). OSC’s stay request need only
     fall within the range of rationality to be granted, and the facts must be reviewed
     in the light most favorable to a finding of reasonable grounds to believe that a
     prohibited personnel practice was (or will be) committed. See Special Counsel ex
     rel. Aran v. Department of Homeland Security, 115 M.S.P.R. 6, ¶ 9 (2010).
     Deference is given to OSC’s initial determination, and a stay will be denied only
                                                                                          4

     when the asserted facts and circumstances appear to make the stay request
     inherently unreasonable.     Special Counsel v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     50 M.S.P.R. 229, 231 (1991).
¶6         Under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)(A), it is a prohibited personnel practice for
     any employee who “has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or
     approve any personnel action,” to discriminate against any employee or applicant
     for employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in
     violation of title VII. Illegal discrimination under title VII includes retaliation
     against an employee based on her opposition to discrimination.             42 U.S.C.
     § 2000e-16(a); Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612, ¶¶ 36-37
     (2015). OSC states that Ms. Spalding sent the anonymous email in an effort to
     identify and oppose discrimination and favoritism based on race that was
     unlawful under title VII. SRF, Tab 1 at 9-11. OSC further asserts that within
     1 month of a report identifying Ms. Spalding as the author of this email, the
     agency proposed her removal and there is a causal link between her email
     opposing unlawful discrimination and her proposed removal. Id. at 11-12. Given
     the deference that should be afforded to OSC and the assertions made in its stay
     request, I find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the agency’s
     proposal to remove Ms. Spalding is the result of a prohibited personnel practice
     under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)(A). 2

     2
       OSC also contends that, even though the disclosures contained in Ms. Spalding’s
     anonymous email alleged racial discrimination that might be protected under title VII,
     the email also independently alleged wrongdoing within the categories of 5 U.S.C.
     § 2302(b)(8), and thus the email is protected regardless of whether it also evidenced
     activity remediable under title VII. SRF, Tab 1 at 16. Because I am granting the stay
     based on an alleged prohibited personnel practice under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)(A) in
     connection with Ms. Spalding’s proposed removal, I need not consider whether to grant
     the stay based on 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). See, e.g., Special Counsel v. Department of
     Transportation, 70 M.S.P.R. 520, 522 n.* (1996) (finding it unnecessary to consider an
     alleged prohibited personnel practice claim under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(11) because there
     was sufficient support for granting the stay based on the 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) claim).
                                                                                        5

                                          ORDER
¶7        Based on the foregoing, granting OSC’s stay request would be appropriate.
     Accordingly, a 45-day stay of Ms. Spalding’s proposed removal is GRANTED.
     The stay shall be in effect from July 28, 2022, through and including
     September 10, 2022. It is further ORDERED that:
           (1)   During the pendency of this stay, Ms. Spalding shall be reinstated to
                 her former position at the same location, with the same duties and
                 responsibilities, and at the same salary and grade level that she had
                 prior to her removal;
           (2)   The agency shall not effect any changes in Ms. Spalding’s duties or
                 responsibilities that are inconsistent with her salary or grade level, or
                 impose upon her any requirement which is not required of other
                 employees of comparable position, salary, or grade level;
           (3)   Within 5 working days of this Order, the agency shall submit
                 evidence to the Clerk of the Board showing that it has complied with
                 this Order;
           (4)   Any request for an extension of this stay pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
                 § 1214(b)(1)(B), as amended by Pub. L. No. 115-42, 3 and 5 C.F.R.
                 § 1201.136(b), must be received by the Clerk of the Board and the
                 agency, together with any further evidentiary support, on or before
                 August 26, 2022; and

     3
      As passed by the House of Representatives on May 25, 2017, passed by the Senate on
     June 14, 2017, and signed into law on June 27, 2017.
                                                                           6

     (5)   Any comments on such a request that the agency wants the Board to
           consider, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(C) and 5 C.F.R.
           § 1201.136(b), must be received by the Clerk of the Board on or
           before September 2, 2022.

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