Court Opinion

ID: 9947242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 14:01:01.354744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:17.208904
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2015   Document: 33     Page: 1   Filed: 03/04/2024

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   SHA’LISA LEWIS,
                      Petitioner

                            v.

          FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                       2023-2015
                 ______________________

   Petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision in No.
 FMCS 220523-06204 by Linda Eberenz.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: March 4, 2024
                 ______________________

    SHA’LISA LEWIS, Mebane, NC, pro se.

     MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA
 M. MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________
Case: 23-2015    Document: 33     Page: 2    Filed: 03/04/2024

 2                                              LEWIS v. BOP

     Before DYK and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and
              BENCIVENGO, District Judge. 1
 DYK, Circuit Judge.
      Petitioner Sha’Lisa Lewis seeks review of an arbitra-
 tor’s decision finding that the Federal Bureau of Prisons
 (“BOP”) properly terminated Ms. Lewis’s employment dur-
 ing her probationary period. Ms. Lewis argues primarily
 that she did not receive notification of her termination un-
 til after the completion of her probationary period and that
 the arbitrator ignored 5 C.F.R. § 315.804, which Ms. Lewis
 contends provides that an employee is not terminated until
 she receives such notice. We conclude that the regulation
 only requires that the agency make reasonable efforts to
 inform the employee of the termination and the reasons for
 it prior to the end of the probationary period. The govern-
 ment unquestionably made such reasonable efforts here.
 We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Under 5 U.S.C. § 7513, federal employees facing re-
 moval are normally entitled to advance written notice and
 procedural protections, including the right to appeal to the
 Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”). However, these
 provisions are inapplicable to individuals serving a proba-
 tionary period under an initial appointment. 5 U.S.C.
 § 7511(a)(1)(A)(i). The question here is whether Ms. Lewis
 was terminated during her probationary period.
      In April 2021, BOP hired Ms. Lewis as a correctional
 officer at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner,
 North Carolina. Ms. Lewis’s appointment was subject to
 completion of a one-year probationary period, which the

     1   Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge,
 United States District Court for the Southern District of
 California, sitting by designation.
Case: 23-2015    Document: 33      Page: 3    Filed: 03/04/2024

 LEWIS v. BOP                                               3

 parties agree ended at 4:00 pm on April 8, 2022. On March
 30, 2022, shortly before the end of her probationary period,
 Ms. Lewis was “placed on administrative leave with pay
 until further notice.” S.A. 6. During administrative leave,
 Ms. Lewis was “subject to recall to duty at any time” and
 was required to provide a “telephone number where [she
 could] be reached at all times during normal duty hours.”
 Id.
     On April 6, 2022, BOP prepared a termination letter to
 Ms. Lewis providing “notice that [Ms. Lewis] will be re-
 moved during probation from [her] position of Correctional
 Officer” as of the end of the day on April 6, 2022. S.A. 9.
 The letter explained that “[t]his action is being taken be-
 cause of [Ms. Lewis’s] unsatisfactory conduct since enter-
 ing on duty April 11, 2021.” Id. The termination letter
 named one charge—“Appearance of an Inappropriate Rela-
 tionship with an Inmate”—and described two instances
 wherein Ms. Lewis purportedly allowed an inmate to enter
 the officer’s station with her while “the lights were off” on
 March 4, 2022, and March 5, 2022. Id. Although Ms. Lewis
 contended at arbitration that these allegations were false,
 the termination letter states that Ms. Lewis had admitted
 these events occurred and that they “support[] someone
 else’s perception of an inappropriate relationship.” Id.
     BOP “attempted to inform Ms. Lewis of their decision
 to terminate her.” S.A. 2. First, on April 5, 2022, BOP di-
 rected Ms. Lewis to report to the facility the next day,
 which a BOP witness testified was for Ms. Lewis “[t]o re-
 ceive the termination letter.” S.A. 28 (24:21). But
 “Ms. Lewis failed to report as instructed, alleging illness.”
 S.A. 2. The record contains a note from a nurse practitioner
 stating that Ms. Lewis was seen at a clinic at 3:15 pm on
 April 5, 2022—the day she received her instruction to re-
 port to the institution. The note requested that Ms. Lewis
 be excused from work until April 9, 2022—the day after her
 probationary period would end.
Case: 23-2015     Document: 33     Page: 4    Filed: 03/04/2024

 4                                                LEWIS v. BOP

      When Ms. Lewis did not report to the facility on April
 6, 2022, BOP “mailed a copy of the termination letter to
 [Ms. Lewis’s] address of record via USPS Certified Mail
 and overnight mail via FedE[x].” Id. Ms. Lewis contends
 that she only received the letter on April 12, 2022, after the
 end of the probationary period. According to FedEx track-
 ing information, “the letter had been delivered on Thurs-
 day, April 7, 2022, at 9:59 am,” before the end of the
 probationary period. Id. Ms. Lewis contended that she
 never received the FedEx package, and that the signature
 on the receipt is not hers. As to the certified mail copy, a
 delivery slip indicates that USPS unsuccessfully attempted
 to deliver it on April 8, 2022. In addition, on April 8, 2022,
 the human resources manager called Ms. Lewis and, when
 Ms. Lewis did not answer, left a voicemail referencing “the
 removal letter from employment here at FCC Butner.” S.A.
 18. Ms. Lewis contended she did not receive the message
 until after her probationary period ended at 4:00 pm, and
 the time stamp on the voicemail exhibit is 4:05 pm, but the
 human resources manager testified that she had called and
 left the message before 3:00 pm.
     On April 20, 2022, the American Federation of Govern-
 ment Employees Local 408 (“the union”) “presented a for-
 mal grievance claiming that bargaining unit employee,
 Sha’Lisa Lewis had been removed from her position with-
 out due process required by the Master Agreement, appli-
 cable statute, and government regulations.” S.A. 1. After
 BOP denied the grievance, the union requested arbitration.
 On January 26, 2023, an in-person arbitration hearing was
 held, during which a lawyer appeared on behalf of the un-
 ion, four witnesses—including Ms. Lewis and a union vice
 president—testified under oath, and twenty-five exhibits
 were presented. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs.
     On April 26, 2023, the arbitrator rendered her decision,
 finding that “Ms. Sha’Lisa Lewis was terminated during
 her probationary period and was not entitled to advanced
 notice or other due process procedures as the Union claims.
Case: 23-2015     Document: 33     Page: 5    Filed: 03/04/2024

 LEWIS v. BOP                                                5

 The termination is not grievable.” S.A. 3. The arbitrator
 held that probationary employees “are to be informed, in
 writing, of the reasons for the termination but there is
 nothing requiring that this information be provided prior
 to termination.” S.A. 2. The arbitrator did not resolve
 whether Ms. Lewis had received notice before the proba-
 tionary period ended. Ms. Lewis timely petitioned for re-
 view, arguing that the arbitrator erred in finding that
 Ms. Lewis was terminated before the end of her probation-
 ary period. Thus, Ms. Lewis contends, she was denied “due
 process protections, such as a proposed removal action, and
 . . . a reasonable opportunity to respond.” Pet. Br. at 4.
     We have jurisdiction to review the arbitrator’s decision
 under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7121(f) and 7703(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(9). See Buffkin v. Dep’t of Def., 957 F.3d 1327,
 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
                         DISCUSSION
      “Under 5 U.S.C. § 7121(e)(1) . . . a federal employee
 seeking to challenge disciplinary action by her employing
 agency may appeal her claim to the MSPB or, alterna-
 tively, take her claim to an arbitrator under a negotiated
 grievance procedure created by collective bargaining agree-
 ment.” Id. We review the arbitrator’s award “using the
 same standard of review that applies to appeals from deci-
 sions of the MSPB.” Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7121(f)). Under
 that standard, we review the record and must “hold unlaw-
 ful and set aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions
 found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
 or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained with-
 out procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having
 been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).
     Ms. Lewis primarily argues that the arbitrator misap-
 plied 5 C.F.R. § 315.804(a), which provides (emphasis
 added):
Case: 23-2015    Document: 33      Page: 6    Filed: 03/04/2024

 6                                               LEWIS v. BOP

     [W]hen an agency decides to terminate an em-
     ployee serving a probationary or trial period be-
     cause his work performance or conduct during this
     period fails to demonstrate his fitness or his quali-
     fications for continued employment, it shall termi-
     nate his services by notifying him in writing as to
     why he is being separated and the effective date of
     the action.
 Ms. Lewis contends that her termination was not effective
 because she did not receive the notice of termination before
 the end of the probationary period and that the arbitrator
 erred in determining that such notice was not required.
      The regulation requires that termination be accom-
 plished “by notifying [the employee] in writing.” 5 C.F.R.
 § 315.804(a). An agency cannot rely only upon an internal
 decision to terminate a probationary employee without no-
 tifying the employee before the end of the probationary pe-
 riod. However, the regulation does not require that the
 employee actually receive the notice before the end of the
 probationary period, as Ms. Lewis contends. Rather, a ter-
 mination is effective if the agency does “all that could be
 reasonably expected under the circumstances” to timely de-
 liver the notice. Shaw v. United States, 622 F.2d 520, 528
 (Ct. Cl. 1980). 2

     2    The events in Shaw predated the enactment of the
 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (“CSRA”), Pub. L. No. 95-
 454, 92 Stat. 1111 et seq. While the CSRA “comprehen-
 sively overhauled the civil service system,” Lindahl v. Of-
 fice of Personnel Management, 470 U.S. 768, 773 (1985), the
 regulation at issue here is identical in relevant part to the
 regulation that was at issue in Shaw. Compare 5 C.F.R.
 § 315.804(a) (2008) (agency “shall terminate his services by
 notifying him in writing”), with 5 C.F.R. § 315.804 (1972)
 (same). Therefore, Shaw is relevant precedent.
Case: 23-2015    Document: 33      Page: 7    Filed: 03/04/2024

 LEWIS v. BOP                                               7

      In Shaw, the plaintiff contended that he did not receive
 actual notice of his termination until after his probationary
 period ended, but the agency had sent several copies of the
 notice to the plaintiff’s home, sent a telegram with the no-
 tice’s contents to a hospital where the plaintiff was being
 treated, and orally notified the plaintiff of his imminent
 termination. Id. The court held that these efforts were
 sufficient. Id. This makes eminent sense in terms of the
 purpose of the regulation. If timely actual notice was re-
 quired, a probationary employee could simply evade notice
 and preclude termination. Shaw’s approach is also con-
 sistent with the “very narrow” protections provided to pro-
 bationary employees. Id. at 527 (quoting Perlongo v.
 United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 982, 983 (1977)).
      Ms. Lewis argues that the arbitrator did not make a
 finding regarding whether BOP was reasonable or diligent
 in attempting to provide notice. We may affirm a judgment
 “on any ground supported by the record, whether or not
 that basis was given by the court,” and we exercise our dis-
 cretion to do so here. El-Sheikh v. United States, 177 F.3d
 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is undisputed that BOP
 placed Ms. Lewis on administrative leave and then in-
 structed her to report to the facility days before the end of
 her probationary period (with the intention of giving her
 the termination notice), and that she did not report as in-
 structed; that BOP sent multiple copies of the notice to her
 home address (designed to arrive before the probationary
 period ended); that BOP called Ms. Lewis on the last day of
 the probationary period to inform her of her termination
 orally; and that before the end of the period BOP attempted
 to leave a voicemail referencing the termination. Based on
 this record, we think that no reasonable arbitrator could
 find that BOP’s efforts were not reasonable under the cir-
 cumstances or that BOP’s efforts were inconsistent with
 the regulation.
Case: 23-2015    Document: 33      Page: 8   Filed: 03/04/2024

 8                                              LEWIS v. BOP

                        CONCLUSION
     Because BOP’s efforts to notify Ms. Lewis of the infor-
 mation required by 5 C.F.R. § 315.804 before the end of the
 probationary period were reasonable under the circum-
 stances, BOP complied with the regulation. Ms. Lewis was
 effectively terminated as a probationary-period employee.
                       AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.