Court Opinion

ID: 9373596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:05.422005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.472059
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KATHY ANN JONES,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DC-0351-16-0049-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: July 8, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Kevin Smith, Columbia, Maryland, for the appellant.

           Michael A. Egan, Fort McNair, Virginia, for the agency.

           Rebecca Bedford, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed the appeal of her alleged involuntary resignation for lack of
     jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only when: the initial

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 peti tion for review and
     AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113(b).

                                          BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant held an Assistant Inspector General position at the agency’s
     Office of Inspector General.         Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 14 at 17.           Her
     assigned duty station was Fort Meade, Maryland.               Id.   On July 21, 2015, the
     agency      identified    the   position   she   held   for     abolishment   through     a
     reduction-in-force (RIF) action. Id. at 28. However, during the RIF proceedings,
     the agency deemed the appellant to have a higher standing within her competitive
     level than that of an Assistant Inspector General assigned to Fort Belvoir,
     Virginia.    Id. at 25.    As a result, on August 3, 2015, the agency directed the
     appellant’s reassignment to the Fort Belvoir position, thereby displacing the
     employee who held that position pursuant to RIF procedures. Id. In its letter
     informing the appellant of the directed reassignment, the agency advised her that,
     if she refused the reassignment, it would separate her from Federal service. Id.
     The agency also advised her that refusal to accept the reassignment would make
     her ineligible for severance pay and that she would not be permitted to register
                                                                                          3

     for the Priority Placement Program.      Id.   The appellant declined the directed
     reassignment and resigned, effective October 3, 2015. Id. at 22. Consequently,
     the agency informed the employee who was holding the Assistant Inspector
     General position at Fort Belvoir that she could remain in the position. Id. at 19.
¶3        The appellant appealed her resignation to the Board, primarily arguing that
     the agency forced her to resign because the reassigned position at Fort Belvoir
     was outside her local commuting area. IAF, Tab 1 at 6. The administrative judge
     advised the appellant of her jurisdictional burden, IAF, Tab 12, held a
     jurisdictional hearing, IAF, Tab 29, and issued an initial decision dismissing the
     appeal for lack of jurisdiction, IAF, Tab 31, Initial Decision (ID).            The
     administrative judge found that the appellant failed to show that her resignation
     was the product of coercion, duress, or misrepresentation on the part of the
     agency, or that her working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable
     person in her position would have felt compelled to re sign. ID at 8-11. As to her
     argument that Fort Belvoir was outside the local commuting area, the
     administrative judge found that, even if correct, this factor alone would not be
     enough to show that the appellant had no choice but to resign. ID at 10 -11. He
     additionally found that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the appellant’s
     independent claims concerning her lateral reassignment, the agency’s decision to
     deny her priority placement and severance pay, and disability discrimination.
     ID at 8, 11. The appellant has filed a petition for review, and the agency has
     replied in opposition. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4        An employee-initiated action, such as a resignation or retirement, is
     presumed to be voluntary, and thus outside the Board’s jurisdiction, unless the
     employee presents sufficient evidence to establish that the action was obtained
     through duress or coercion, or shows that a reasonable person would have been
     misled by the agency. Green v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 59,
                                                                                            4

     ¶ 8 (2009). In cases such as this one, when the employee alleges that the agency
     took actions that made working conditions so intolerable that the employee was
     driven to an involuntary resignation, the Board will find an action involuntary
     only if the employee demonstrates that the employer engaged in a course of
     action that made working conditions so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable
     person in that employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. Vitale v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, 107 M.S.P.R. 501, ¶ 20 (2007).               The Board
     addresses allegations of discrimination and reprisal in connection with an alleged
     involuntary resignation only insofar as those allegations relate to the issue of
     voluntariness. Id.
¶5         In her petition for review, the appellant reasserts her contention that her
     resignation was involuntary because the Fort Belvoir position was outside her
     local commuting area. 2      PFR File, Tab 1 at 1.          First, we agree with the
     administrative judge’s explanation that, for purposes of the RIF, the agency did
     not attempt to reassign the appellant to a location outside of the local commuting
     area. ID at 10. Specifically, the administrative judge found, and we agree, based
     on the totality of the evidence presented below, that the distance between Fort
     Meade and Fort Belvoir was not so great as to be beyond what employees could
     “reasonably be expected to travel back and forth daily to their usual
     employment.” Id. (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 351.203). Second, and significantly, we
     agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that, even if the Fort Belvoir
     position was outside the local commuting area as the appellant contends, she did
     not present evidence to show that she had no choice but to resign rather than
     accept the reassignment. ID at 10-11. The record reflects that the administrative
     judge considered the appellant’s arguments concerning the extended daily

     2
       The appellant has not challenged the administrative judge’s findings that the Board
     lacked jurisdiction over her lateral reassignment, priority placement, severance pay, and
     disability discrimination claims, ID at 8, 11, and we discern no reason to disturb these
     findings on review.
                                                                                      5

commute, including her alleged nighttime vision problems, and properly
concluded that “the mere fact that the appellant was faced with unpleasant
choices, i.e., that of accepting a position 53 miles away or resigning, does not, by
itself, render her decision to resign involuntary.” ID at 6-11; see, e.g., Christie v.
United States, 518 F.2d 584, 587-88 (Ct. Cl. 1975); Baldwin v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 109 M.S.P.R. 392, ¶¶ 19-20 (2008) (explaining that allegations
of being assigned to onerous tasks, being unjustifiably threatened wit h discipline,
and being subjected to unnecessary investigations did not suffice to prove an
allegation of involuntary resignation).     For example, we note that, instead of
resigning, the appellant could have chosen to refuse to accept the directed
reassignment and challenged any possible disciplinary action the agency may
have taken as a result of that refusal. Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

                         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
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.

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.
                                                                                         6

      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
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
                                                                                  7

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
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, th e
address of the EEOC is:
                                                                                      8

                            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 review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).

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,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                  9

      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals f or
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.
      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.