Court Opinion

ID: 9388181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 21:00:11.387431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:18.593217
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     VANESSA REDUS,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          AT-0353-17-0132-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: April 19, 2023
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

           Vanessa Redus, Cordova, Tennessee, pro se.

           Sandra W. Bowens, Esquire, Memphis, Tennessee, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her restoration appeal for lack of jurisdiction.           For the reasons
     discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review , VACATE the
     initial decision, and REMAND the case to the regional office for further
     adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

     *
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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        The agency employs the appellant as a Mail Processing Clerk.           Initial
     Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1, Tab 5 at 8. She suffered compensable injuries in
     2003 and 2005. IAF, Tab 5 at 9; Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3. On
     July 6, 2015, her doctor completed a Form CA-17 (Duty Status Report) that
     cleared her to resume work within certain medical restrictions. IAF, Tab 5 at 3.
     She forwarded the form to the agency’s Injury Compensation Specialist, seeking
     restoration as a partially recovered employee. Id. at 1. The agency offered the
     appellant a modified limited duty assignment dated October 1, 2015, but she
     declined it because she claimed that the physical requirements of the modified
     assignment were outside her medical restrictions.    IAF, Tab 10 at 1, 6.     The
     appellant alleged that she submitted additional Forms CA-17 to the Injury
     Compensation Specialist in the subsequent months. IAF, Tab 5 at 1, 4 -7. As a
     result of a Form CA-17 dated January 12, 2017, the agency offered her a different
     modified limited duty assignment on January 18, 2017, which she accepted. IAF,
     Tab 10 at 1, 4-5; PFR File, Tab 1 at 1.
¶3        On November 21, 2016, the appellant filed an appeal alleging that the
     agency improperly denied her request for restoration as a partially recovered
     employee beginning in July 2015 and that the agency discriminated against her
     based on her disability. IAF, Tab 1. Without holding the requested hearing, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of
     jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 19, Initial Decision (ID). She found that the appellant
     made nonfrivolous allegations that she was absent from work due to a
     compensable injury and that she recovered sufficiently to return to duty on a
     part-time basis or in a position with less demanding physical requirements than
     those previously required of her. ID at 7. She found, however, that the appellant
     failed to nonfrivolously allege that the agency denied her request for restoration
     because she did not prove that the October 2015 modified assignment offer was
     outside her medical restrictions.   ID at 8.   She then found that, even if the
                                                                                        3

     appellant had nonfrivolously alleged a denial of restoration , she failed to
     nonfrivolously allege that the denial was arbitrary and capricious because she
     admitted that she did not appear for investigative interviews regarding her
     extended absence. ID at 8-9. She further found that the Board lacked jurisdiction
     to consider the appellant’s disability discrimination claim in the absence of an
     otherwise appealable action. ID at 9.
¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review. PFR File, Tab 1. The agency
     has responded in opposition. PFR File, Tab 3.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         The Board has jurisdiction to review whether an agency’s denial of
     restoration to a partially recovered employee was arbitrary and capricious.
     Bledsoe v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 659 F.3d 1097, 1103–04 (Fed. Cir.
     2011), modified in part by regulation as stated in Kingsley v. U.S. Postal Service ,
     123 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶ 10 (2016); 5 C.F.R. § 353.304(c). To establish jurisdiction
     and obtain a hearing on the merits, an appellant must make the following
     nonfrivolous allegations:     (1) she was absent from her position due to a
     compensable injury; (2) she recovered sufficiently to return to duty on a part-time
     basis or to return to work in a position with less demanding physical requirements
     than those previously required of her; (3) the agency denied her request for
     restoration; and (4) the agency’s denial was arbitrary and capricious. Kingsley,
     123 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶ 11; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.57(a)(4), (b).
¶6         While this appeal was pending on review, the Board issued a decision
     clarifying the jurisdictional standard in partial restoration appeals. Cronin v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 2022 MSPB 13.       In Cronin, the Board found that a denial of
     restoration is arbitrary and capricious if—and only if—the agency failed to meet
     its obligations under 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d).      Id., ¶ 20.   The Board explicitly
     overruled Latham v. U.S. Postal Service, 117 M.S.P.R. 400 (2012), and its
     progeny to the extent such precedent held that a denial of restoration may be
                                                                                     4

     arbitrary and capricious based on an agency’s failure to comply with its
     self-imposed restoration obligations, such as those provided in the agency’s
     Employee and Labor Relations Manual. Id. Accordingly, to establish jurisdiction
     under the fourth jurisdictional element, an appellant must make a nonfrivolous
     allegation that the agency failed to comply with the minimum requirement of
     5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d), i.e., to search within the local commuting area for vacant
     positions to which it can restore a partially recovered employee and to consider
     her for any such vacancies. Id.
¶7        Here, the parties did not have the benefit of the Board’s decision in Cronin
     during the proceedings below, and we are unable to determine whether the
     appellant met her jurisdictional burden based on the record before us. Therefore,
     we remand the case to the regional office to allow the parties an opportunity to
     submit evidence and argument supporting their positions under the clarified
     jurisdictional standard. We advise the parties that, under Cronin, an offer of a
     modified limited duty assignment—even one within an employee’s medical
     restrictions—without evidence that the agency conducted a proper search for
     vacant positions within the local commuting area does not meet the minimum
     requirement of 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d). Cronin, 2022 MSPB 13, ¶ 20.
¶8        Should the appellant establish jurisdiction over her appeal on remand, the
     administrative judge must adjudicate the appellant’s disability discrimination
     claim. See Desjardin v. U.S. Postal Service, 2023 MSPB 6, ¶¶ 20-21.
                                                                                   5

                                         ORDER
¶9        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
     for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

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