Court Opinion

ID: 9397742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 06:00:12.320591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.311644
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     NDIDI OBIEFUNA,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DE-1221-17-0127-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: May 25, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           James F. Ralls, Jr., Esquire, Liberty, Missouri, for the appellant.

           Pearson E. Dubar, Esquire, Overland Park, Kansas, for the appellant.

           Michael E. Anfang, Esquire, Kansas City, Missouri, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     denied her request for corrective action in this individual right of action appeal.
     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 by
     this Final Order to VACATE the administrative judge’s alternate finding that the
     agency presented clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the
     personnel action absent the appellant’s protected disclosures and activity, we
     AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         The appellant asserts on review that the administrative judge made
     erroneous credibility findings about the deciding official’s knowledge of her
     July 31, 2015 Office of Inspector General (OIG) disclosures and thus she proved
     that her protected disclosures and activity were a contributing factor in her award
     denial. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 4 at 12-15, Tab 7 at 9-10. For the
     reasons set forth in the initial decision, we agree with the administrative judge
     that the appellant failed to prove that the deciding official had actual or
     constructive knowledge of her OIG disclosures.           Initial Appeal File, Tab 38,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 8-13. 2       Although the appellant disagrees with the

     2
       The administrative judge also properly considered other relevant evidence on the
     contributing factor issue; specifically, the strength or weakness of the agency’s reasons
     for taking the personnel action, whether the disclosure was personally directed at the
     proposing or deciding officials, and whether these individuals had a desire or motive to
     retaliate against the appellant.      ID at 13; Dorney v. Department of the Army,
                                                                                         3

     administrative judge’s credibility determinations, we find that her disagreement is
     not a sufficiently sound reason to overturn them. See Diggs v. Department of
     Housing and Urban Development, 114 M.S.P.R. 464, ¶ 8 (2010) (finding that the
     Board must defer to an administrative judge’s credibility determinations when
     they are based, explicitly or implicitly, on observing the demeanor of witnesses
     testifying at a hearing; the Board may overturn such determinations only when it
     has “sufficiently sound” reasons for doing so).
¶3         Because we find that the appellant failed to prove that her disclosures and
     protected activity were a contributing factor in her award denial, the Board may
     not proceed to determine whether the agency proved by clear and convincing
     evidence that it would have denied the award in the absence of her disclosures
     and protected activity.    5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(2); see Clarke v. Department of
     Veterans Affairs, 121 M.S.P.R. 154, ¶ 19 n.10 (2014), aff’d per curium, 623 F.
     App’x 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we vacate the administrative judge’s
     findings concerning whether the agency met its clear and convincing burden. ID
     at 13-21. 3
¶4         The appellant asserts on review that the administrative judge failed to
     consider her national origin and accent when speaking English in his demeanor
     analysis. PFR File, Tab 4 at 14. We do not agree with the appellant’s cursory
     allegation, but to the extent that she alleges bias by the administrative judge, her
     claim does not overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity that
     accompanies administrative adjudicators.          See Oliver v. Department of

     117 M.S.P.R. 480, ¶ 15 (2012). We discern no basis for disturbing the administrative
     judge’s findings regarding these other factors.
     3
      During the pendency of this appeal, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
     Year 2018 (NDAA), Pub. L. No. 115-91, 131 Stat. 1283, was signed into law on
     December 12, 2017. Section 1097 of the NDAA amended various provisions of Title 5
     of the United States Code. Our disposition of this matter would be the same under both
     pre- and post-NDAA law.
                                                                                           4

     Transportation, 1 M.S.P.R. 382, 386 (1980); see also Bieber v. Department of the
     Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
¶5         Based on the foregoing, we deny the petition for review and affirm the
     initial decision as modified by this Final Order.

                              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 an d
     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

     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

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 partic ular
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
                                                                                  6

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, 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
                                                                                      7

      (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. 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.

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

      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 li nk below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

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