Court Opinion

ID: 9963924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 16:00:44.085372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:04.727216
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SHARON M. TALLEY,                               DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DE-1221-21-0175-W-2

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,                      DATE: April 25, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      David A. Branch , Esquire, James R. Klimaski , Esquire, and Steven J.
        Silverberg , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

      Dora Malykin , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

      Patricia McNamee , Esquire, Riverdale, Maryland, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
denied her request for corrective action in her individual right of action (IRA)
appeal because she did not prove a prima facie case of whistleblower reprisal.
Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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 to
vacate the administrative judge’s finding in the alternative that the agency proved
by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel
actions in the absence of the appellant’s protected disclosure or activities, we
AFFIRM the initial decision.
       The administrative judge found that, although the appellant did not prove
that she made protected disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A), she proved
that she engaged in protected activities under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(C). Talley v.
Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket No. DE-1221-21-0175-W-2, Refiled
Appeal File (RAF), Tab 31, Initial Decision (ID) at 6-22. However, she found
that the appellant did not prove that her protected activities were a contributing
factor in the covered personnel actions at issue, and thus, the appellant did not
establish a prima facie case of whistleblower reprisal. 2 RAF, ID at 37-42. On
2
  In her petition for review, the appellant asserts that her burden of proof to establish a
prima facie case of reprisal for whistleblowing was substantial evidence. Petition for
Review File, Tab 1 at 11. This is incorrect. To establish a prima facie case of reprisal
for whistleblowing, an appellant must prove by preponderant evidence that she made a
protected disclosure or engaged in protected activity that was a contributing factor in an
agency decision to take or fail to take a personnel action. See Salazar v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 43, ¶ 23; Webb v. Department of the Interior,
122 M.S.P.R. 248, ¶ 6 (2015).
                                                                                       3

review, the appellant presents no evidence that would support a finding that any
of her alleged disclosures or activities, which occurred in 2012, were a
contributing factor in the agency’s decision to deny her a temporary promotion in
2019, or its failure to increase her pay or issue her a Standard Form 50 for a
temporary promotion she served in 2020. 3 Thus, to the extent that the appellant
disputes the administrative judge’s findings regarding her disclosures and
activities, we need not reach this issue because, as the administrative judge
correctly found, the appellant did not meet the contributing factor standard. Id.
      Because the appellant did not prove her prima facie case of whistleblower
reprisal, the Board may not proceed to the clear and convincing evidence test.
Clarke v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 121 M.S.P.R. 154, ¶ 19, n.10 (2014),
aff’d per curiam, 623 F. App’x 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, we vacate the
administrative judge’s finding in the alternative, that the agency proved by clear
and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel actions in
the absence of any protected disclosure or activities. RAF, ID at 42-60.

3
  The administrative judge found that the appellant did not prove that the other alleged
retaliatory actions were covered personnel actions under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A).
RAF, ID at 22-29. To the extent that the appellant challenges these findings on review,
because we find them to be well-reasoned and supported by fact and law, we discern no
basis to disturb them. Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 106 (1997)
(stating that the Board will not disturb an administrative judge’s findings when she
considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned
conclusions on issues of credibility); Broughton v. Department of Health & Human
Services, 33 M.S.P.R. 357, 359 (1987) (same). Furthermore, the appellant did not
object to the administrative judge’s framing of the issues as set forth in her prehearing
order, despite being afforded the opportunity to do so. RAF, Tab 21 at 4-5, 10.
Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the administrative judge’s characterization
of the issues in this appeal. See Kingsley v. U.S. Postal Service, 123 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶ 14
(2016) (declining to address on review matters excluded by the administrative judge in
orders to which the appellant was afforded the opportunity to object and did not do so);
Tarpley v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 579, 581 (1988) (stating that the appellant’s
failure to timely object to rulings on witnesses precludes his doing so on petition for
review).
                                                                                          4

                           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
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:

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

                             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
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
                                                                                  6

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, 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
                                                                                      7

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. 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.
                                                                        8

      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:                       ______________________________

                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.