Court Opinion

ID: 9909732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 22:00:33.031842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:19.237730
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SHAWN CASSIO,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  PH-0752-22-0028-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                     DATE: December 12, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Morgan Smith and Carson S Bailey , Dallas, Texas, for the appellant.

           Gabriel Tese and Robyn Peterson , Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, for the
           agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The agency has filed a petition for review and the appellant has filed a cross
     petition for review of the initial decision, which found that the agency proved the
     unprofessional conduct charge and nexus, the appellant did not prove his claim of
     harmful procedural error, and the removal penalty should be mitigated to a 60-day
     suspension. On petition for review, the agency argues that its decision to remove

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 appellant is entitled to deference, removal is a reasonable penalty for the
     sustained misconduct, and a 60-day suspension is not a reasonable penalty.
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 3 at 11-21. In his cross petition for review,
     the   appellant argues    that the    administrative   judge   erred in sustaining
     specifications (b) and (d) and the unprofessional conduct charge, and she
     wrongfully evaluated his affirmative defense of harmful procedural error. PFR
     File, Tab 7 at 7-17.     Generally, we grant petitions such as these 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 neither party has
     established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition or cross
     petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and the cross
     petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s
     final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                         DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2         For the first time on petition for review, the appellant asserts that the
     agency must prove unprofessional conduct and a toxic work environment to
     sustain specification (b), and it must prove unprofessional conduct and
     “Intimidation/Bullying” to sustain specification (d). PFR File, Tab 7 at 12-13;
     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 9 at 84-86. The Board will not generally consider
     an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that
                                                                                          3

     it is based on new and material evidence not previously available despite the
     party’s due diligence. Banks v. Department of the Air Force , 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271
     (1980).    The appellant has not made such a showing.          However, even if we
     consider this argument, we find that a different outcome is not warranted.
¶3         A charge usually has two parts (1) a name or label that generally
     characterizes the misconduct, and (2) a narrative description of the actions that
     constitute the misconduct. Otero v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 198, 203
     (1997). Here, the agency charged the appellant with unprofessional conduct, and
     it   set   forth   a   narrative   description   of   the   alleged   misconduct     in
     specifications (a)-(d). 2   IAF, Tab 9 at 84-86.      The agency’s decision to use
     additional terms at the beginning of the narrative in specifications (b) and (d),
     such as “Toxic Work Environment” and “Intimidation/Bullying,” respectively,
     does not impose an additional proof requirement on the agency. To the contrary,
     these terms are duplicative of some of the allegations contained in specifications
     (b) and (d), respectively. Moreover, the appellant does not dispute on review that
     he had a profane outburst in November 2020, as alleged in specification (b), or
     that he discouraged subordinates from reporting issues to management officials,
     as alleged in specification (d).       We have considered the appellant’s other
     arguments relating to the charge and specifications, but we find them
     unpersuasive.      We affirm the administrative judge’s decision to sustain the
     unprofessional conduct charge based on her decision to sustain specifications (b)
     and (d).    IAF, Tab 22, Initial Decision (ID) at 7-16; see, e.g., Burroughs v.
     Department of the Army, 918 F.2d 170, 172 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding that, when
     more than one event or factual specification supports a single charge, proof of
     one or more, but not all, of the supporting specifications is sufficient to sustain
     the charge).

     2
      Neither party challenges the administrative judge’s conclusion that the agency did not
     prove specifications (a) and (c), and we affirm this conclusion.
                                                                                          4

¶4        We have considered the appellant’s arguments regarding the administrative
     judge’s analysis of his harmful procedural error claims, but we find them
     unpersuasive for the reasons described in the initial decision. ID at 16-17; PFR
     File, Tab 7 at 16-17.
¶5        In its petition for review, the agency contends that its removal penalty is
     entitled to deference and is reasonable. When, as here, the agency’s charge is
     sustained, but some of the underlying specifications are not sustained, the
     agency’s penalty determination is entitled to deference and only should be
     reviewed to determine whether it is within the parameters of reasonableness.
     Payne v. U.S. Postal Service, 72 M.S.P.R. 646, 650 (1996).           If the agency’s
     penalty is not reasonable, the Board will mitigate only to the extent necessary to
     bring it within the parameters of reasonableness, i.e., the Board will apply a
     maximum reasonable penalty standard. Id. at 651. An agency’s failure to sustain
     all of its supporting specifications may require, or contribute to, a finding that the
     agency’s penalty is not reasonable. Id.
¶6        Such is the case here.      Indeed, the administrative judge sustained only
     portions of two of the four specifications.        Coupled with the discrepancies
     between the decision letter and the deciding official’s testimony on the relevant
     penalty factors, and the ample mitigating factors, which the administrative judge
     discussed at length in the initial decision, we find that the removal penalty is not
     entitled to deference and is not reasonable.        We discern no error with the
     administrative judge’s decision to mitigate the removal penalty to a 60-day
     suspension for the reasons described in the initial decision.
¶7        Finally, we deny the appellant’s petition to enforce the interim relief order
     because the Board’s regulations do not allow for such a petition.          PFR File,
     Tab 9; Elder v. Department of the Air Force, 124 M.S.P.R. 12, ¶ 20 (2016). We
     may instead consider the appellant’s pleading as a challenge to the agency’s
     certification of compliance with the interim relief order.            Id.; 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.116(b). In this case, however, because the appellant is receiving a final
                                                                                          5

      Board order on the merits in his favor, the agency’s compliance with the interim
      relief order is a moot issue. Elder, 124 M.S.P.R. 12, ¶ 20; Cowart v. U.S. Postal
      Service, 117 M.S.P.R. 572, ¶ 6 & n.* (2012).

                                               ORDER
¶8          We ORDER the agency to cancel the removal action, substitute in its place
      a 60-day suspension, and restore the appellant to his Ammunition Operations
      Supervisor position. 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.
¶9          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.
¶10         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).
¶11         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
                                                                                            6

      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).
¶12         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 3
             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

      3
        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.
                                                                                        7

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
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
                                                                                    8

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. 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,
                                                                                      9

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 of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 4   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

4
   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,
                                                                                10

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.

132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                       11

      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:                       ______________________________
                                     Jennifer Everling
                                     Acting 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.