Court Opinion

ID: 9956942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 15:01:08.85198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:01.052806
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

RAFAEL ARROYO,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
            Appellant,                          CB-7121-21-0018-V-1

             v.

SOCIAL SECURITY                                 DATE: April 2, 2024
  ADMINISTRATION,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Suzanne Pillari , Esquire, Syracuse, New York, for the appellant.

      Fergus Kaiser , Esquire, New York, New York, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of an arbitration decision that
mitigated his removal to a time-served suspension.         For the reasons set forth
below, we DISMISS the request for review for lack of jurisdiction.

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                BACKGROUND
      Effective October 11, 2018, the agency removed the appellant from his
position as a Claims Specialist based on the charges of conduct unbecoming of a
Federal employee and absence without official leave. Request for Review (RFR)
File, Tab 1 at 34-42. The appellant’s union filed a grievance on his behalf, which
the agency denied, and the union invoked arbitration. Id. at 43-52. On June 22,
2021, the arbitrator issued an award finding that the agency did not have just
cause to remove the appellant and ordering the agency to reinstate the appellant,
with the time between his removal and reinstatement to be considered a
disciplinary suspension with no back pay. Id. at 71-79.
      On July 22, 2021, the appellant filed the instant request for review of the
arbitrator’s award. Id. at 1-15. The appellant asserts, among other things, that
the Board has jurisdiction to review the arbitration decision because he alleged
reprisal and because he raised issues under Article 18 of his collective bargaining
agreement (CBA), entitled “Equal Employment Opportunity,” on his “Standard
Grievance Form,” “during testimony,” and “in the Union’s requested findings in
the associated Post-Hearing Brief.” Id. at 9-11, 43-45, 53-70, 80-89. The agency
has filed a response asserting, among other things, that the Board lacks
jurisdiction over this matter because the appellant failed to raise allegations of
discrimination before the arbitrator and has not even identified the type of
discrimination he is claiming, and because his claim of reprisal is not covered.
RFR File, Tab 4 at 6-10.

                                   ANALYSIS
      As explained in our acknowledgement order, the appellant has the burden
of proving by preponderant evidence that the Board has jurisdiction over his
request for review. RFR File, Tab 2 at 3; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(A). As
we further explained, the Board has jurisdiction over a request for review of an
arbitration decision if (1) the subject matter of the grievance is one over which
                                                                                     3

the Board has jurisdiction; (2) the appellant either (i) raised a claim of
discrimination under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1) with the arbitrator in connection with
the underlying action, or (ii) raises a claim of discrimination in connection with
the underlying action under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1) for the first time with the
Board if such allegations could not be raised in the negotiated grievance
procedure; and (3) a final decision has been issued. RFR File, Tab 2 at 2; see
Jones v. Department of Energy, 120 M.S.P.R. 480, ¶ 8 (2013), aff’d, 589 F. App’x
972 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.155(a)(1), (c).
      Here, we find that conditions (1) 2 and (3) are satisfied. RFR File, Tab 1
at 44, 73-79. However, we conclude that the appellant failed to meet his burden
as to condition (2). As noted above, the appellant alleges that he raised a claim of
discrimination before the arbitrator by raising Article 18 of the CBA on his
“Standard Grievance Form,” during testimony, and in his post-hearing brief. Id.
at 10, 43-45, 53-70. But the appellant’s reliance on his grievance form to the
agency, which simply cites Article 18, is misplaced.          Id. at 44.   To satisfy
condition (2), it was incumbent upon the appellant to prove that he raised
discrimination under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1) with the arbitrator.            See Jones,
120 M.S.P.R. 480, ¶ 8; see also Scanlin v. Social Security Administration,
2022 MSPB 10, ¶ 5 (finding unavailing the appellant’s assertion that she had
raised a claim of disability discrimination in her grievance with the agency
because the jurisdictionally dispositive issue was whether she had raised
discrimination with the arbitrator).
      Although the appellant also claims that Article 18 was “addressed
extensively during testimony,” he has not submitted any testimony with his
request for review, and the record does not contain any such evidence. RFR File,
Tab 1 at 10. With respect to his post-hearing brief to the arbitrator, the appellant
only alleges he “raised issues under the [CBA] at Article 18 (Equal Employment
2
 The appellant’s removal, which was the subject matter of the grievance, is an action
appealable to the Board under chapter 75 of Title 5 of the United States Code. 5 U.S.C.
§§ 7512(1), 7513(d).
                                                                                     4

Opportunity) . . . in the Union’s requested findings in the associated Post-Hearing
Brief.” Id. The appellant provided the Board with a copy of his post-hearing
brief, and, in the brief, he simply requested that the arbitrator find that the agency
failed to show that its removal decision “was issued with just cause and within
contractual parameters given violations of Article 3, Sections 1, 2(A); Article 23;
Article 31, Section 5; and Article 18.” Id. at 55. The appellant did not elaborate
on the relevancy of Article 18, raise any sort of issue of discrimination relative to
a violation of Article 18, or even discuss discrimination in any other way. We do
not find that, at most, a mere allusion to discrimination via Article 18 shows that
the appellant raised a claim of discrimination under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1) with
the arbitrator, as required.   See Scanlin, 2022 MSPB 10, ¶ 6 (finding that the
generic posing of the question, “was the removal discriminatory,” without more,
was insufficient to prove that the appellant raised a claim of discrimination under
5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1) with the arbitrator).
      With respect to the appellant’s brief assertion that he also raised issues of
reprisal in this case, we note that in the appellant’s post-hearing brief, he also
stated “[i]f it is determined that the [a]gency acted in a discriminatory manner
and in retaliation against the [g]rievant for his Union role, the arbitrator is asked
to consider and award compensatory damages as appropriate pursuant to the
applicable EEOC retaliation provisions.” RFR File, Tab 1 at 10, 56. However, a
claim that the agency discriminated and/or retaliated against the appellant based
on his union activity does not fall under the purview of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1).
See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)(A)-(E).             Thus, the appellant’s arguments are
unavailing.
      We note that the appellant also provided the Board with a copy of the
arbitrator’s decision, which states at the outset that “[t]he sole issue [in the case]
is the standard issue in such matters: Was the removal for just cause?” and “If
not, what shall be the remedy.”       RFR File, Tab 1 at 74 (internal quotations
                                                                                          5

omitted).       The arbitrator’s decision does not address or even mention
discrimination under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1) in any substantive way. 3
       Accordingly, we find that the appellant has failed to meet his jurisdictional
burden of proving that he raised a claim of discrimination under 5 U.S.C.
§ 2302(b)(1) with the arbitrator in connection with the underlying action.
Because the appellant could have raised a claim of discrimination before the
arbitrator but has not proven that he did so, the Board lacks jurisdiction over his
request for review.

                          NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
       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 and 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.

3
  During the arbitrator’s discussion of the charge of conduct unbecoming of a Federal
employee, which concerns the agency’s allegation that the appellant yelled at a
supervisor, the arbitrator discussed an ensuing shouting match and noted: “Certainly it
was loud, probably infused with vulgarities, but without racial/religious/ethnic/sexual
insults.” RFR File, Tab 1 at 75. This appears to simply be a description of the incident,
as there is no other indication that the appellant argued, or the arbitrator considered, the
issue of discrimination with respect to this charge.
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.
                                                                                         6

      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
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 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.
      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
                                                                                  7

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
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:
                                                                                      8

                            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

      (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).

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.
                                                                                  9

      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.
      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 link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.