Court Opinion

ID: 9401423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 06:00:15.647587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.705911
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ERIC BENNETT,                                   DOCKET NUMBERS
                         Appellant,                  NY-0752-14-0073-X-1
                                                     NY-0752-14-0073-C-2
                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF
       TRANSPORTATION,
                 Agency.                             DATE: June 12, 2023

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jonathan Bell, Esquire, and Susan Tylar, Esquire, Garden City, New York,
             for the appellant.

           Daniel P. Kohlmeyer, Esquire, Jamaica, New York, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                            ORDER

¶1         In an October 26, 2022 Order, the Board affirmed, except as modified to
     find an additional basis of agency noncompliance, the compliance initial decision,
     which granted in part the appellant’s petition for enforcement and found the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     agency in partial noncompliance with the final decision in the underlying appeal
     reversing the appellant’s removal and ordering him reinstated with back pay and
     benefits. Bennett v. Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-
     14-0073-C-2, Order (Oct. 26, 2022); Bennett v. Department of Transportation,
     MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-14-0073-C-2, Compliance Petition for Review
     (CPFR) File, Tab 6; Bennett v. Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket
     No. NY-0752-14-0073-C-2, Compliance File (C-2 CF), Tab 11, Compliance
     Initial Decision (CID). Specifically, the compliance initial decision found the
     agency in noncompliance to the extent it had failed to pay the appellant $6,000 in
     bonus pay as part of his back pay award. CID at 4-5. The Board modified the
     compliance initial decision to also find the agency in noncompliance to the extent
     it failed to provide sufficient and clear information regarding its calculation of
     the appellant’s overtime back pay. Order, ¶¶ 1, 11-13. The Board ordered the
     agency to submit evidence of compliance within 60 days demonstrating that it
     properly calculated the appellant’s overtime hours and that the back pay award
     reflected that calculation. Id., ¶ 14. For the reasons discussed below, we find
     that the agency has established compliance with its obligation to pay the appellant
     $6,000 in bonus back pay but remains in noncompliance with its obligation to
     demonstrate that it has properly calculated and paid the appellant the appropriate
     amount of overtime back pay with interest.

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant, an Air Traffic Control Specialist, sustained an on-the-job
     injury on March 25, 2011, and the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
     (OWCP) accepted his claim for traumatic injury.        Bennett v. Department of
     Transportation, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-14-0073-I-2, Refiled Appeal File,
     Tab 21, Initial Decision (ID) at 2-3. Effective November 9, 2013, the agency
     removed the appellant from Federal service due to his continuing unavailability
     for duty, noting that he had not reported for regular, full-time duty since his
                                                                                      3

     March 25, 2011 injury. ID at 1, 12-13. The appellant appealed his removal to the
     Board, and in a July 29, 2016 initial decision, the administrative judge reversed
     the removal and ordered the agency to reinstate him effective November 9, 2013,
     and provide him appropriate back pay with interest and restored benefits .      ID
     at 27, 38.   Neither party petitioned for review of the initial decision, which
     became final on September 2, 2016. ID at 40.
¶3        On January 23, 2017, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement arguing
     that the agency had failed to properly calculate and pay his back pay award, failed
     to restore certain leave, and failed to give him a chance to “buy back” his OWCP
     leave. Bennett v. Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-14-
     0073-C-1, Compliance File (C-1 CF), Tab 1.          The agency argued that the
     appellant was not entitled to back pay for the period he received OWCP
     benefits—November 9,      2013,   through   February 17,    2015—and      provided
     affidavits reflecting, in relevant part, that it would pay the appellant for
     approximately 232 hours of overtime for 2015 and 153.5 hours of overtime for
     2016 based on the overtime hours he actually worked in the year prior to his
     injury. C-1 CF, Tab 7 at 5, 10-11, 13
¶4        In a March 10, 2017 interim order, the administrative judge held that,
     contrary to the agency’s contention, the appellant was entitled to the back pay and
     benefits for the period he was receiving OWCP benefits, less deductions that
     ordinarily would have been taken, including an offset for any OWCP wage
     replacement benefits he actually received, since the agency had failed to submit
     concrete and positive evidence establishing that the appellant was not ready,
     willing, and able to perform the duties of his position during that time. C-1 CF,
     Tab 12 at 1-2. The administrative judge explicitly stated that the appellant’s back
     pay for this period “should include all additional pay, such as overtime, Sunday
     pay, night differential and holiday pay that he would have received had he worked
     during this time period.”      Id. at 2 (citing Powe v. U.S. Postal Service,
     108 M.S.P.R. 130 (2008)).     Accordingly, the administrative judge ordered the
                                                                                             4

     agency to pay the appellant the appropriate amount of back pay for the time
     period from November 9, 2013, through February 17, 2015, and dismissed the
     appeal without prejudice for a period of 60 days to give the agency time to
     comply with the interim order. Id. at 2; C-1 CF, Tab 13.
¶5         Upon the automatic refiling of the petition for enforcement, the appellant
     narrowed the scope of his enforcement challenges to the following allegations of
     noncompliance:     (1) the agency failed to correctly calculate his overtime back
     pay; (2) the agency failed to him pay $9,000 in bonus awards for 2015; and
     (3) the agency failed to give him the opportunity to “buy back” his OWCP leave.
     C-2 CF, Tab 6 at 6-8.       In an August 1, 2017 compliance initial decision, the
     administrative judge granted the appellant’s petition in part and found the agency
     in noncompliance to the extent it failed to pay him $6,000 in bonus payments he
     would have received but for the improper removal.                   CID at 4-6.      The
     administrative judge denied the appellant’s petition for enforcement to the extent
     he claimed that the agency failed to correctly calculate the overtime hours in his
     back pay award, finding that the agency’s decision to pay the appellant overtime
     based on his pre-removal overtime hours was not unreasonable. CID at 3-4. The
     administrative judge also denied the appellant’s petition for enforcement to the
     extent he argued that the agency failed to afford him an opportunity to buy back
     leave, finding that the appellant failed to establish that he was entitled to do so.
     CID at 5-6.
¶6         On September 20, 2017, after requesting and receiving an extension of time
     to file, the appellant petitioned for review of the compliance initial deci sion,
     arguing that the administrative judge erred in finding that the agency correctly
     calculated the overtime hours in his back pay award. 2 CPFR, Tab 1.                In the
     October 26, 2022 Order, the Board found that the agency’s use of the appellant’s

     2
       The appellant did not challenge in his compliance petition for review the
     administrative judge’s findings that he was entitled to $6,000 in bonus pay as part of his
     back pay award or that he was not entitled to buy back any leave. CPFR File, Tab 1.
                                                                                       5

     historical overtime hours to calculate his overtime back pay award was reasonable
     but that the agency failed to present clear and understandable evidence that its
     overtime back pay calculations were accurate. Order, ¶¶ 8-13. Accordingly, the
     Board affirmed the compliance initial decision except as modified to find that the
     agency’s failure to present clear and understandable information regarding its
     overtime back pay calculation constituted an additional basis of agency
     noncompliance. Id., ¶¶ 1, 13. The Board ordered the agency to submit evidence
     and a narrative statement of compliance within 60 days, including evidence
     demonstrating that it properly calculated the appellant’s pre-removal overtime
     hours and that the back pay awarded to the appellant reflected that calculation.
     Id., ¶ 14.
¶7         On December 23, 2022, the agency submitted a narrative statement and a
     sworn declaration from a Payroll Program Specialist explaining that the
     “confusion” regarding the overtime hours in the back pay award occurred as a
     result of the agency entering hours into timecards as decimals in Excel (base 100)
     and the payroll services interpreting those entries as clock hours and minutes
     (base 60), i.e., the agency input 1.26 to signify 1 hour and 16 minutes, but payroll
     services interpreted this figure as 126 minutes (or 2 hours 6 minutes).       CRF,
     Tab 3 at 4-5, 7-8. The agency stated, however, that this issue was identified and
     corrected in 2017, so the overtime calculation and back pay calculations made at
     the time were correct, and provided a copy of an email from the Supervisory
     Human Resources Specialist stating that the appellant’s “payment is correct.” Id.
     at 5, 9.
¶8         In response, the appellant argued that the agency’s December 23, 2022
     compliance submission failed to demonstrate that it properly calculated and paid
     him the appropriate amount of overtime hours for the full back pay period from
     November 9, 2013, through November 6, 2016. CRF, Tab 4 at 4 -6. The appellant
                                                                                            6

      also argued that he was entitled to the outstanding overtime back pay plus interest
      and attorney’s fees in connection with his petition for enforcement. 3 Id. at 6-7.

                                           ANALYSIS
¶9          When, as here, the Board finds a personnel action unwarranted, the aim is to
      place the appellant, as nearly as possible, in the situation he would have been in
      had the wrongful personnel action not occurred.          Vaughan v. Department of
      Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R. 319, ¶ 5 (2011); King v. Department of the Navy,
      100 M.S.P.R. 116, ¶ 12 (2005), aff’d per curiam, 167 F. App’x 191 (Fed. Cir.
      2006). The agency bears the burden to prove compliance with the Board ’s order
      by a preponderance of the evidence. 4 Vaughan, 116 M.S.P.R. 319, ¶ 5; 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.183(d).    An agency’s assertions of compliance must include a clear
      explanation of its compliance actions supported by documentary evidence.
      Vaughan, 116 M.S.P.R. 319, ¶ 5. The appellant may rebut the agency’s evidence
      of compliance by making specific, nonconclusory, and supported assertions of
      continued noncompliance. Id.

      $6,000 Bonus Award
¶10         As described above, the administrative judge found that the agency was not
      in compliance with the Board’s final order in the underlying appeal because it had
      failed to pay the appellant $6,000 in bonus pay as part of his back pay award.
      CID at 4-5. The agency’s submissions show that it has now made this payment.
      CRF, Tab 2. In particular, as set forth above, the agency stated and provided

      3
        The appellant’s request for attorney fees in connection with these compliance
      proceedings is premature because the Board has not yet issued a final decision on
      compliance. See Galatis v. U.S. Postal Service, 109 M.S.P.R. 651, ¶ 14 (2008);
      5 C.F.R. § 1201.203(d) (requiring a motion for attorney fees to be filed as soon as
      possible after a final decision of the Board but no later than 60 days after the date on
      which a decision becomes final).
      4
       A preponderance of the evidence is the degree of relevant evidence t hat a reasonable
      person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a
      contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).
                                                                                        7

      evidence reflecting that the agency paid the appellant a $6,000 lump sum on
      August 15, 2017.     CRF, Tab 2.     As the appellant has not responded to the
      agency’s assertions and evidence of compliance, the Board assumes that he is
      satisfied. See Baumgartner v. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
      111 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 9 (2009). Accordingly, we find that the agency has complied
      with its outstanding obligation to pay the appellant the $6,000 in bonus pay he
      would have received during the back pay period had the removal not occurred.

      Overtime Pay
¶11        Overtime back pay may be computed based on either the appellant’s own
      overtime history or the average overtime hours worked by similarly situated
      employees during the relevant time period.      Rittgers v. Department of Army,
      123 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶ 13 (2015). Although the appellant is not entitled to receive a
      windfall, he is entitled to be restored to the status quo ante, and the agency must
      use the method of computation most likely to achieve this goal. Id. The Board
      will not nullify the method used by the agency to calculate overtime back pay in
      the absence of a showing that the method was unreasonable or unworkable. Id.
¶12        Here, the agency stated that it calculated the appellant’s overtime back pay
      award based on the hours of overtime he worked during the year prior to his
      March 25, 2011 injury and determined on that basis that he was entitled to
      approximately 232 hours of overtime per year. C-1 CF, Tab 7 at 5-6, C-2 CF,
      Tab 7 at 5. The only evidence the agency provided regarding the number of hours
      of overtime back pay the agency paid the appellant is a February 7, 2017 affidavit
      completed by the Payroll Program Specialist attesting that the appellant received
      the following overtime back pay:
                                                                                        8

                         Period             Overtime hours       Overtime Pay

                 1/11/2015 – 6/13/2015    76 hours 10 min.       $9,357.33

                 6/14/2015 – 1/9/2016     155 hours 40 min.      $19,594.97

                 1/10/2016 – 6/11/2016    93 hours 10 min.       $11,837.10

                 6/12/2016 – 10/15/2016 60 hours 20 min.         $7,783.85

      C-1 CF, Tab 7 at 10-11. Thus, the agency’s evidence reflects that the appellant
      received back pay for approximately 232 hours of overtime in 2015 and
      approximately 153.5 hours of overtime for 2016, for a total of 385 hours and
      20 minutes of overtime for the period from January 11, 2015, through October 15,
      2016.
¶13           As noted above, both the administrative judge and the Board found that the
      agency’s decision to calculate the appellant’s overtime back pay using his
      overtime history was not unreasonable. Order, ¶¶ 8-10; CID at 4. However, the
      Board found that the agency had failed to present clear and understandable
      evidence showing that its overtime back pay calculations were accurate. Order,
      ¶¶ 11-13. Specifically, the Board found that the agency failed to provide any
      evidence confirming that the appellant previously worked 232 hours of overtime
      per year and noted that the records submitted by the appellant show that he
      worked 215 hours of overtime in 2015, rather than 232. Id., ¶¶ 12-13. The Board
      additionally found that the Management Support Specialist’s statements that she
      used the overtime hours the appellant worked in each pay period the year prior to
      his injury and applied these hours to both 2015 and 2016 conflicted with the
      Payroll Program Specialist’s affidavit, which stated that the appellant was entitled
      to only 153 hours of overtime for 2016 and to different amounts of overtime for
      the January-to-June period of each year. Id. at ¶ 13. Furthermore, the Board
      noted that, at the time the agency submitted this evidence, the agency believed
      that it was not required to pay the appellant back pay for the period he was
                                                                                       9

      receiving OWCP benefits (November 9, 2013, through February 17, 2015) and
      therefore applied the appellant’s historical overtime hours only to 2015 and 2016.
      Id., ¶ 13 n.2.    However, as the Board observed, the administrative judge
      subsequently ruled that the agency was required to pay the appellant back pay,
      including overtime pay, for the period he was receiving OWCP benefits, minus an
      offset for any OWCP wage replacement benefits he actually received. Id.
¶14        In its statement of compliance responding to the Board’s finding of
      noncompliance in connection with its overtime calculations, the agency stated
      that the “confusion” with its back pay calculations arose as a result of converting
      unspecified timecard entries from decimal hours to clock hours and minutes but
      that the appellant nonetheless received the correct amount of back pay. CRF,
      Tab 3 at 5, 9. This submission fails to address the deficiencies identified in the
      Board’s Order and does not satisfy the agency’s obligation to demonstrate
      compliance by preponderant evidence.
¶15        First, the agency has still not provided clear and understandable evidence
      supporting its determination that the appellant was entitled to 232 hours of
      overtime per year of the back pay period based on the overtime hours he actually
      worked prior to his injury.     The agency has previously represented that it
      determined the appellant’s overtime back pay award based on the hours of
      overtime he worked in the 1 year before his March 25, 2011 injury. C -1 CF,
      Tab 7 at 5, 13.   The Board previously construed this statement to mean the
      overtime hours worked in 2010. Order, ¶¶ 8-10, 12, 14. It appears, however, that
      the agency may have been referring to the 12-month period immediately
      preceding his removal, i.e., March 25, 2010, through March 24, 2011, rather than
      the year 2010. Regardless of which of these 12-month periods the agency used to
      calculate the appellant’s overtime back pay entitlement based on his overtime
      history, it must submit evidence supporting its determination that the appellant
      actually worked 232 hours of overtime during that period.
                                                                                          10

¶16         Second, the agency has not stated or provided any evidence showing that it
      has properly calculated and paid the appellant the appropriate amount of overtime
      back pay for the entire back pay period, including November 9, 2013, through
      February 17, 2015, as expressly required by the administrative judge’s interim
      order, or October 16, 2016, through the date of his reinstatement. 5 The unsworn
      and unsupported email from the Supervisory Human Resources Specialist stating
      that the appellant’s “payment is correct,” CRF Tab 3 at 9, does not establish that
      the appellant has received the correct amount of overtime back pay, see Adamsen
      v. Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R. 331, ¶ 17 (2011) (finding an unsworn
      unsupported statement not to be probative of the matter asserted). The agency
      must provide evidence showing that it has satisfied its obligation to calculate and
      pay the appellant the overtime back pay to which he is entitled for the entire back
      pay period.
¶17         Third, the agency has failed to provide clear and understandable evidence
      accounting for the      apparent conflict between the Management Support
      Specialist’s affidavit stating that the appellant’s historical overtime data was
      applied to both 2015 and 2016 and the Payroll Program Specialist’s affidavit
      stating that the appellant was entitled to only 153 hours of overtime for 2016 and
      to 17 hours of overtime less for the January-to-June period in 2015 than the same
      time period in 2016.     Although the agency’s December 23, 2022 compliance
      submission contends that the “confusion” in its prior back pay calculations
      resulted from a conversion error, the agency does not explicitly state which
      numbers were affected by the error or explain how the error actually affected any
      particular number. CRF, Tab 3. Thus, it is unclear if the purported conversion
      error affected the agency’s calculations regarding the appellant’s overtime back

      5
        The appellant states that he returned to work on November 6, 2016, although there
      does not appear to be any evidence in the record confirming this date. CRF, Tab 4 at 5.
      If the agency does not provide evidence confirming the end date of the back pay period,
      the Board will assume the appellant’s statement is correct.
                                                                                       11

      pay for 2015 and 2016 and, even if it did, the agency’s submission does not
      provide sufficient information for the Board to find that the overtime hours paid
      to the appellant for these years were correct. Moreover, we note that the 17-hour
      difference between the 76 hours 10 minutes of overtime paid to the appellant for
      the January-to-June period in 2015 and the 93 hours 10 minutes of overtime paid
      to him for the same period in 2016 appears to be accounted for by, at least in part,
      the agency’s apparent failure to pay the appellant overtime back pay for the
      period he was receiving OWCP benefits, rather than solely due to the purported
      conversion error. If the agency maintains that its prior calculations regarding the
      appellant’s overtime entitlement in 2015 and 2016 are correct, it must provide a
      clear and understandable explanation, supported by evidence, addressing how it
      derived those numbers and why there are differences between the overtime hours
      for the same periods in 2015 and 2016.

                                            ORDER
¶18        Accordingly, we ORDER the agency to submit, within 21 calendar days of
      the date of this order, satisfactory evidence of compliance with the Board’s
      Order. Specifically, the agency must submit evidence and a detailed narrative
      establishing the following by preponderant evidence:
            (1)      that the agency has properly calculated based on the
                  appellant’s overtime history the number of overtime hours he is
                  entitled to per year of the back pay period, including evidence
                  establishing that the appellant in fact worked 232 hours of
                  overtime in the 12-month period preceding his injury or in 2010;
            (2)      that the agency has properly calculated the appellant’s
                  entitlement to overtime back pay for the entire back pay period,
                  including the period when he was receiving OWCP benefits
                  (November 9, 2013, through February 17, 2015) and from
                  October 16, 2016, through the date of his return to work; and
                                                                                          12

            (3)      if the agency determines that the appellant is entitled to
                  additional overtime back pay, that it has paid him the appropriate
                  overtime back pay, minus appropriate deductions and offsets,
                  with interest, which shall accrue through a date not more than
                  30 days before the date on which the payment is made, see
                  5 U.S.C. § 5596(b)(2)(B)(i).
¶19         Furthermore, we ORDER the agency to submit, within 21 calendar days of
      this order, the name, title, grade, address, and email address of the agency official
      or officials charged with complying with the Board’s order and provide evidence
      showing that it has informed such official or officials in writing of the potential
      sanction for noncompliance as set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(2) and (e)(2)(A),
      even if the agency asserts that it has fully complied with the Board’s order. 6
      5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(2). If the agency fails to identify the agency official or
      officials charged with complying with the Board’s Order, the Board will presume
      that the highest ranking appropriate agency official who is not appointed by the
      President by and with the consent of the Senate is charged with compliance. Id.
¶20         The appellant may respond to the agency’s response to this Order within
      21 calendar days of the date of service of the agency’s submission.              If the
      appellant does not respond to the agency’s submission regarding compliance

      6
        We acknowledge that, in response to the administrative judge’s acknowledgment
      order, the agency identified five “responsible agency officials”: a Lead Human
      Resources Specialist, a Senior Technical Specialist, the Payroll Program Specialist, a
      Supervisor of Benefits within the Interior Business Center, and the Management
      Support Specialist. C-1 CF, Tab 7 at 4-5. However, it is unclear which of these
      individuals, if any, is charged with complying with the Board’s Order to properly
      calculate and pay the appellant’s overtime back pay with interest. See 5 U.S.C.
      1204(a)(2); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(2). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1204(e)(2)(A), the Board
      may order that any employee charged with complying with its order, other than an
      employee appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
      shall not be entitled to receive payment for service as an employee during any period
      that the order has not been complied with. Accordingly, the agency must identify the
      responsible agency official or officials charged with—and with the authority to—
      comply with the Board’s Order to calculate and pay the appellant the appropriate
      amount of overtime back pay with interest.
                                                                                     13

      within 21 calendar days, the Board may assume that he is satisfied and dismiss
      the petition for enforcement.
¶21         This Order does not constitute a final order and is therefore not subject to
      judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). Upon the Board’s final resolution of
      the remaining issues in this petition for enforcement, a final order subject to
      judicial review will be issued.

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