Court Opinion

ID: 9397321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 06:00:11.167134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.597699
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

PEGGY A. MALONEY,                               DOCKET NUMBER
             Petitioner,                        CB-1205-21-0005-U-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: May 24, 2023
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency,

             and

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION,
  EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
  PRESIDENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Peggy A. Maloney, Greenport, New York, pro se.

      Nadia K. Pluta, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the Office of Personnel
        Management.

      Raheemah Abdulaleem and John Kevin Fellin, Washington, D.C., for the
        Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President.

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                          BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1            The petitioner requests that we review, pursuant to our authority under
     5 U.S.C. § 1204(f), the implementation of 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 by her former
     employer, the Office of Administration (OA), an entity within the Executive
     Office of the President. Request File (RF), Tab 1. She further alleges that OA
     took various actions in violation of other Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
     regulations. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the petitioner’s request
     for regulation review.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2            The petitioner alleges that OA violated 5 C.F.R. § 752.403(b), which
     provides that “[a]n agency may not take an adverse action against an employee on
     the basis of any reason prohibited by 5 U.S.C. § 2302.” RF, Tab 1 at 2. She
     states that OA made significant changes to her working conditions and took
     multiple adverse actions against her in reprisal for her protected whistleblower
     disclosures in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). Id. at 9. She states that OA’s
     violations of OPM regulations were also prohibited personnel practices (PPP)
     under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(3) and (b)(12). Id. The petitioner states that she is also
     challenging the OA’s implementation of several other OPM regulations, including
     5 C.F.R. §§ 410.302, 531.410, 630.1202, 736.201, 752.102, and 752.201. Id. at 4,
     6, 10.

     2
       Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
     completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                          3

¶3         OA responds that the petitioner is attempting to relitigate claims that she
     has brought in other appeals. 3 RF, Tab 9 at 1.        OA states that the petitioner
     “appears to challenge multiple regulations, but only to the extent that she merely
     lists them without identifying any specific legal infirmities for the Board’s
     review.” Id. at 5. OA states that these “challenges” relate to matters that she
     already has appealed. Id. Finally, OA states that the petitioner “already has had
     available to her through her individual appeals all appropriate remedies for the
     challenged personnel actions.” Id. at 6. OPM did not file a response. 4

                                          ANALYSIS
¶4         The Board has original jurisdiction to review rules and regulations
     promulgated by OPM.       5 U.S.C. § 1204(f). In exercising its jurisdiction, the
     Board is authorized to declare an OPM rule or regulation invalid on its face if the
     Board determines that such provision would, if implemented by any agency, on
     its face, require any employee to commit a PPP as def ined by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b).
     5 U.S.C. § 1204(f)(2)(A). Similarly, the Board has the authority to determine that
     an OPM regulation has been invalidly implemented by an agency if the Board
     determines that such provision, as it has been implemented by the agency through
     any personnel action taken by the agency or through any policy adopted by the
     agency in conformity with such provision, has required any employee to commit a
     PPP. 5 U.S.C. § 1204(f)(2)(B). See Prewitt v. Merit Systems Protection Board,

     3
       The petitioner filed a whistleblower individual right of action (IRA) appeal, MSPB
     Docket Nos. DC-1221-19-0677-W-1 and DC-1221-19-0677-B-1, and an appeal from her
     removal, MSPB Docket Nos. DC-0752-20-0092-I-1 and DC-0752-20-0092-I-2.
     4
       The petitioner filed several motions requesting that the Board sanction OPM for not
     filing a response to her request for regulation review. See, e.g., RF, Tabs 15, 17-19.
     Given that the Board’s invitation to OPM to file a response was not compulsory, we
     deny the petitioner’s motions. See Delos Santos v. Office of Personnel Management,
     89 M.S.P.R. 296, ¶ 5 (2001) (holding that there is no statute or regulation requiring a
     response to a request for regulation review or authorizing the Board to order sanctions
     under such circumstances).
                                                                                       4

     133 F.3d 885, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1998).          Here, the petitioner challenges the
     implementation of various OPM regulations by her former employer, OA.
¶5         The Board’s regulations direct the individual requesting review to provide
     the following information: the requester’s name, address, and signature; a citation
     identifying the regulation being challenged; a statement (along with any relevant
     documents) describing in detail the reasons why the regulation would require an
     employee to commit a PPP, or the reasons why the implementation of the
     regulation requires an employee to commit a PPP; specific identification of the
     PPP at issue; and a description of the action the requester would like the Board to
     take. 5 C.F.R. § 1203.11(b). See Di Jorio v. Office of Personnel Management,
     54 M.S.P.R. 498, 500 (1992). Here, the petitioner has provided this information
     only with respect to her challenge to the OA’s implementation of 5 C.F.R.
     § 752.403(b). Although she cites several other OPM regulations, she does not
     provide reasons explaining why OA’s purportedly incorrect application of those
     regulations requires an employee to commit a PPP and, in most instances, she
     does not specifically identify the PPP at issue. In the absence of such allegations,
     the petitioner has not met her burden under 5 C.F.R. § 1203.11(b). See Garcia v.
     Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 266, ¶ 6 (2008) (where a
     petitioner fails to explain how a regulation requires the commission of a PPP or
     fails to identify the PPP at issue, the Board has denied the regulation review
     request).
¶6         The petitioner alleges that OA violated 5 C.F.R. § 752.403(b) by placing
     her on a detail after she made disclosures that a Combined Federal Campaign
     (CFC) raffle violated CFC rules; an authorization for training form, SF-182, was
     improperly submitted; a contractor gave away prescription drugs; and there was
     mismanagement related to a leasing contract. RF, Tab 1 at 2-4, 8. These same
     allegations form the basis of the petitioner’s pending IRA appeal. See Mahoney
     v. Executive Office of the President, Office of Administration , MSPB Docket No.
                                                                                         5

     DC-1221-19-0677-W-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 5 (alleging reprisal for making
     the same disclosures).
¶7         The Board’s regulation review authority is discretionary.            5 U.S.C.
     § 1204(f)(1)(B) (providing that the Board grants a petition for regulation review
     “in its sole discretion”). See Clark v. Office of Personnel Management, 95 F.3d
     1139, 1141 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Congress explicitly authorized the Board to review
     directly any provision of any OPM rule or regulation and stated that the decision
     whether to grant such review was in the Board’s “sole discretion”). In deciding
     whether to exercise our discretion, we consider, among other things, the
     likelihood that the issue will be timely reached through ordinary channels of
     appeal, the availability of other equivalent remedies, the extent of the regulation’s
     application, and the strength of the arguments against the validity of its
     implementation. McDiarmid v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 19 M.S.P.R. 347,
     349 (1984).
¶8         Here, we find it dispositive that the petitioner is raising issues that are
     duplicative of those that she has raised in her pending IRA appeal. Indeed, the
     petitioner raised her claims of reprisal for whistleblowing by filing a complaint
     with the Office of Special Counsel and, upon closure of that complaint, an IRA
     appeal with the Board. On August 3, 2022, the B oard granted the petitioner’s
     petition for review, vacated the initial decision, and remanded the case for further
     adjudication.    Maloney v. Office of Administration, Executive Office of the
     President, 2022 MSPB 26. Among other things, the Board held that OA met the
     definition of an “agency” and that the petitioner is an “employee” in a “covered
     position.”    Id. at ¶ 42.   In addition, the petitioner’s appeal from her removal
     remains pending before the Board. If the petitioner prevails in her IRA appeal
     and/or her removal appeal, appropriate remedies would be available to her. If she
     prevails in her removal appeal, she may be reinstated and entitled to back pay;
     and if she proves that she was subjected to prohibited personnel practices in her
                                                                                        6

     IRA appeal, she may be entitled to corrective action, including compensatory and
     consequential damages. 5 See 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g).

                                           ORDER
¶9        Accordingly, the petitioner’s request for regulation review is DENIED.
     This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this
     proceeding.   Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 120 3.12(b)
     (5 C.F.R. § 1203.12(b)).

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

     5
       In her request for regulation review, the petitioner requests that the Board charge
     certain Federal employees with treason. RF, Tab 1 at 12. The Board does not have
     authority to order such a remedy.