Court Opinion

ID: 9373362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:27.26221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.736841
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SPECIAL COUNSEL                                 DOCKET NUMBER
EX REL. MICHAEL MCCORD,                         CB-1208-22-0017-U-2
              Petitioner,

             v.
                                                DATE: September 28, 2022
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND
  HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSON,
             Agency.

          THIS STAY ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
      Elizabeth Q. McMurray, Esquire and Shoshana S. Elon, Esquire,
        Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.

      Ariel E. Solomon, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the relator.

      Pollyanna Hampton, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                      ORDER ON STAY EXTENSION REQUEST

¶1        Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(B), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)
     requests a 60-day extension of the previously granted stay of the Federal Mine
     Safety and Health Review Commission’s (the agency’s) removal while OSC
     completes its investigation and legal review of the matter and determines whether
     to seek corrective action.   For the reasons discussed below, OSC’s request is
     GRANTED.

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2        On August 15, 2022, OSC requested a 45-day initial stay of the removal of
     Mr. McCord based on misconduct charges.          Special Counsel ex rel. Michael
     McCord v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission , MSPB Docket
     No. CB-1208-22-0017-U-1, Stay Request File, Tab 1. In its initial stay request,
     OSC argued that it had reasonable grounds to believe that the agency’s action was
     in retaliation for Mr. McCord’s activity that was protected by 5 U.S.C.
     §§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9). Id. On August 18, 2022, OSC’s initial stay request was
     granted through and including October 1, 2022.    Special Counsel ex rel. Michael
     McCord v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission , MSPB Docket
     No. CB-1208-22-0017-U-1, Order on Stay Request (Aug. 18, 2022).
¶3        On September 14, 2022, OSC timely filed a request to extend the stay for an
     additional 60 days.   Special Counsel ex rel. Michael McCord v. Federal Mine
     Safety and Health Review Commission, MSPB Docket No. CB-1208-22-0017-
     U-2, Stay Request File (U-2 SRF), Tab 1. The agency has not filed a response.

                                       ANALYSIS
¶4        A stay granted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1) is issued to maintain the
     status quo ante while OSC and the agency involved resolve the disputed matter.
     Special Counsel v. Department of Transportation, 74 M.S.P.R. 155, 157 (1997).
     The purpose of the stay is to minimize the consequences of an alleged prohibited
                                                                                      3

     personnel practice. Id. In evaluating a request for an extension of a stay, the
     Board will review the record in the light most favorable to OSC and will grant a
     stay extension request if OSC’s prohibited personnel practice cl aim is not clearly
     unreasonable. Id. at 158. The Board may grant the extension for any period that
     it considers appropriate.   5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(B); Special Counsel ex rel.
     Waddell v. Department of Justice, 105 M.S.P.R. 208, ¶ 3 (2007).
¶5        In its stay extension request, OSC asserts that it continues to have
     reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. McCord’s removal constitutes prohibited
     personnel practices pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9), and it states
     that its investigation is ongoing. U-2 SRF, Tab 1 at 4. OSC states that it has
     “conducted upwards of two dozen witness interviews and reviewed voluminous
     documentary evidence,” including agency records provided in response to its
     request for records and information. Id. Since the Board ordered the initial stay,
     OSC has received additional records from the agency and is seeking to obtain
     from the agency a password for “what appears to be a highly-relevant
     password-protected document.” Id. OSC requests additional time to complete its
     review of the information provided, schedule and conduct any additional
     necessary witness interviews, issue any additional requests for information, and
     decide on further action depending on how the evidentiary record develops. Id.
¶6        Viewing the record in the light most favorable to OSC and considering the
     fact that the evidentiary record supporting OSC’s initial stay request does not
     appear to have changed materially since the initial stay was granted, an extension
     of the stay is not clearly unreasonable to allow OSC time to c ontinue its
     investigation, attempt a resolution of this matter and, if necessary, pursue
     corrective action before the Board.        Special Counsel v. Small Business
     Administration, 73 M.S.P.R. 12, 13-14 (1997).
¶7        Finally, a separate determination must be made on the length of the
     requested stay. Waddell, 105 M.S.P.R. 208, ¶ 5. It is the intent of Congress that
     stays not be extended for prolonged periods of time.          Special Counsel v.
                                                                                         4

     Department of the Treasury, 71 M.S.P.R. 419, 421 (1996). Moreover, the Board
     is obligated to press OSC to present corrective action case s in a timely manner.
     Id. at 422. In light of these factors, we find that a 60-day extension of the stay is
     warranted, and we therefore grant OSC’s request.

                                           ORDER
¶8         Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(B), a 60-day extension of the stay is
     hereby GRANTED, and it is ORDERED as follows:
           (1)    The stay issued on August 18, 2022, is extended through and
                  including November 30, 2022, on the terms and conditions set forth
                  in that Order;
           (2)    The agency shall not effect any changes in Mr. McCord’s duties or
                  responsibilities that are inconsistent with his salary or grade level, or
                  impose upon him any requirement which is not required of other
                  employees of comparable position, salary, or grade level;
           (3)    Within 5 working days of this Order, the agency shall submit
                  evidence to the Clerk of the Board showing that it has complied with
                  this Order;
           (4)    Any request for a further extension of this stay pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
                  § 1214(b)(1)(B), as amended by Pub. L. No. 115-42, 2 and 5 C.F.R.
                  § 1201.136(b) must be received by the Clerk of the Board and the
                  agency, together with any further evidentiary support, on or before
                  November 15, 2022; and

     2
      As passed by the House of Representatives on May 25, 2017, passed by the Senate on
     June 14, 2017, and signed into law on June 27, 2017.
                                                                           5

     (5)   Any comments on such a request that the agency wants the Board to
           consider pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(C) and 5 C.F.R.
           § 1201.136(b) must be received by the Clerk of the Board on or
           before November 22, 2022.

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