Court Opinion

ID: 9374483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 07:00:46.890953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:51.237050
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     LORI HOFFMAN,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  SF-0752-17-0432-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: February 22, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Lori Hoffman, Pinehurst, North Carolina, pro se.

           Winston D.M. Ling, Esquire, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her involuntary resignation appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally,
     we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances:           the
     initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 to vacate the administrative
     judge’s finding that the appellant was not misinformed by the agency, we
     AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2        The appellant previously served as a civilian employee at the agency’s Fort
     Shafter, Hawaii base. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 4. She decided to move
     her family from Hawaii to the continental United States for financial reasons, and
     she discussed her intent with her first- and second-level supervisors. Id. After
     being unable to find a suitable Federal Government position, she accepted a
     private-sector position with a defense contractor in North Carolina.      Id.   The
     appellant resigned from Federal Service after her second-level supervisor denied
     her request to be placed in leave without pay (LWOP) status for 1 year while she
     simultaneously worked for the defense contractor. Id. She filed a complaint with
     the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and subsequently an individual right of
     action (IRA) appeal with the Board alleging that the agency had denied her
     LWOP request (forcing her to resign) because of her whistleblowing disclosures
     and other activity. IAF, Tab 1 at 1; Hoffman v. Department of the Army, MSPB
     Docket No. SF-1221-17-0331-W-1, Initial Appeal File (W-1 IAF), Tab 1.
     Following a conference in which the appellant stated that she had involuntarily
     resigned as a result of misleading information concerning the approval of her
                                                                                            3

     LWOP request, the administrative judge docketed this separate appeal. 2 Without
     holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge iss ued an initial decision
     dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 9, Initial Decision (ID)
     at 1, 8. She found that the appellant had failed to allege facts that established that
     she was provided misinformation or that a reasonable person w ould have been
     misled by her first-level supervisor’s general support of her intention to use
     LWOP when they discussed her search for a new position in the continental
     United States 5 months prior to her accepting a job with a private contractor . ID
     at 7-8.
¶3         On petition for review, the appellant asserts that “[f]acts were not stated
     clearly” in the initial decision and “therefore appear to have been misinterpreted
     by the [administrative] judge.” Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. She
     argues that her January 2015 request for 1 year of LWOP was not a “[g]eneralized
     informal discussion of possibilities,” as characterized in the initial decision, but

     2
       An appellant may pursue an involuntary resignation claim as a personnel action in an
     IRA appeal. Colbert v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 121 M.S.P.R. 677, ¶ 12 & n.5
     (2014) (overruling Covarrubias v. Social Security Administration, 113 M.S.P.R. 583,
     ¶ 9 n.2 (2010)). Generally, when an appellant has been subjected to an appealable
     action that she believes was taken because of whistleblowing or other protected
     activity, and she first seeks corrective action before OSC, she may not later contest the
     matter as an appeal to the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7701, but rather can only pursue the
     reprisal claim before the Board in an IRA appeal . See 5 U.S.C. § 7121(g); Corthell v.
     Department of Homeland Security, 123 M.S.P.R. 417, ¶¶ 15-16 (2016). However, the
     decision to seek corrective action before OSC when, as here, an appellant has not made
     a knowing and voluntary election of remedies is not a binding election that precludes a
     separate constructive removal appeal while contesting the remaining personnel actions
     in her IRA appeal. See Corthell, 123 M.S.P.R. 417, ¶ 17; Savage v. Department of the
     Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612, ¶ 18 (2015), overruled in part by Pridgen v. Office of
     Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 23-25. The appellant has not been
     prejudiced by the docketing of her involuntary resignation claim as a separate appeal
     rather than considering it as part of her IRA appeal. In either case, one aspect of the
     appellant’s jurisdictional burden would be to make a nonfrivolous allegation that her
     resignation was tantamount to a constructive removal. W -1 IAF, Tab 7 at 2; see
     Mintzmyer v. Department of the Interior, 84 F.3d 419, 423 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Comito v.
     Department of the Army, 90 M.S.P.R. 58, ¶ 13 (2001). As discussed in this Final Order,
     the administrative judge correctly found that the appellant failed to make such an
     allegation.
                                                                                             4

     rather her first-level supervisor “verbally approved” the request at that time. Id.;
     ID at 7. She acknowledges, however, that she did not submit a Standard Form 52
     (SF-52) requesting LWOP at that time because “the requirement and dates would
     have been purely speculative.”        PFR File, Tab 1 at 4.       She argues that “no
     reasonable person would” undertake logistical steps including terminating a
     residential lease and securing a new lease in another state prior to requesting
     LWOP when they would not do so “if LWOP were to be disapproved.”                       Id.
     Finally, she asserts that the administrative judge did not explain why her
     argument that her second-level supervisor lacked the legal authority to deny her
     LWOP request was unpersuasive. Id. at 4-5.
¶4         When there is a claim that an involuntary resignation resulted from
     misinformation, an appellant must show that (1) the agency made misleading
     statements and (2) she reasonably relied on the misinformation to her detriment.
     See Scharf v. Department of the Air Force, 710 F.2d 1572, 1574-75 (Fed. Cir.
     1983); Salazar v. Department of Army, 115 M.S.P.R. 296, ¶ 9 (2010).                    An
     appellant may meet this burden by showing that a reasonable person would have
     been misled by the agency’s statements, regardless of any intent or lack of intent
     to deceive on the part of the agency. Covington v. Department of Health and
     Human Services, 750 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Scharf, 710 F.2d at 1575.
     An appellant is entitled to a jurisdictional hearing if she presents nonfrivolous
     allegations 3 of Board jurisdiction. Ferdon v. U.S. Postal Service, 60 M.S.P.R.
     325, 329 (1994). As the administrative judge correctly determined, the appellant
     failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that she was provided misinformation by
     the agency regarding her ability to take LWOP for 1 year while working for a
     private defense contractor or that a reasonable person would have been misled by
     the information provided. ID at 5-8.

     3
       A nonfrivolous allegation is an assertion that, if proven, could establish the matter at
     issue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(s).
                                                                                       5

¶5        The administrative judge erred, however, to the extent that she weighed the
     evidence at the jurisdictional stage of the appeal in finding that the appellant was
     not misinformed by her first-level supervisor “when he indicated he would
     support her decision to relocate from Hawaii.” ID at 6; see Ferdon, 60 M.S.P.R.
     at 329 (finding that, although the Board may consider the agency’s documentary
     submissions in determining whether the appellant has made a nonfrivolous
     allegation, to the extent that the agency’s evidence constitutes mere factual
     contradiction of the appellant’s otherwise adequate prima facie showing of
     jurisdiction, the administrative judge may not weigh evidence and resolve
     conflicting assertions of the parties).      Therefore, we vacate that finding.
     Nevertheless, we have considered the allegations in the appellant’s jurisdictional
     responses and agree with the administrative judge that a reasonable person would
     understand that obtaining employment with a private-sector contractor could
     create a conflict, as acknowledged in the appellant’s own pleadings, and that a
     decision such as approval of extended LWOP cannot be made “in a vacuum”
     several months before determining the specific details. ID at 7-8; IAF, Tabs 4-5,
     7. We find that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege that the agency made
     misleading statements regarding her request for 1 year of LWOP. See Covington,
     750 F.2d at 942 (noting that the Board uses an objective standard to determine
     voluntariness, not the appellant’s purely subjective evaluation) ; Scharf, 710 F.2d
     at 1575. The appellant also failed to nonfrivolously allege that she reasonably
     relied on the purported misinformation to her detriment in accepting a private
     contractor position and making plans to relocate prior to submitting the SF -52
     request. See Covington, 750 F.2d at 942. Because the appellant has not presented
     nonfrivolous allegations of Board jurisdiction, she is not entitled to a
     jurisdictional hearing. See Ferdon, 60 M.S.P.R. at 329.
¶6        The appellant asserts that the agency failed to comply with her discovery
     requests. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-6. Because she did not file a motion to compel
     below, the appellant is precluded from raising this discovery issue for the first
                                                                                           6

     time on review. See Szejner v. Office of Personnel Management, 99 M.S.P.R.
     275, ¶ 5 (2005), aff’d, 167 F. App’x 217 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
¶7         Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and affirm as modified the
     initial decision.

                              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.
                                                                                         7

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
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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017).                 If you have a
representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before
                                                                                  8

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:
                         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
                                                                                      9

      (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 2 302(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.
                                                                             10

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