Court Opinion

ID: 9939759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 18:01:25.2571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:54.353044
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

JENNIFER KAY MORGAN,                            DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        PH-0731-19-0307-I-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: February 9, 2024
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Randolph Elliott , Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, for the appellant.

      Darlene M. Carr , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed a negative suitability action by the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM). On petition for review, the appellant alleges the following: (1) the initial
decision should be reversed; (2) the administrative judge erred by not granting a
continuance to allow for the testimony of a particular witness; and (3) 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 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

administrative judge erred in finding that she failed to prove her affirmative
defense of sex discrimination on the basis of disparate treatment. Petition for
Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3-5. 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 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 and AFFIRM the initial
decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 2
      The appellant avers that a “key witness” was unable to testify at the hearing
and she states that “[t]he [h]earing was not allowed to be postponed to wait for,
and allow for her testimony.”       PFR File, Tab 1 at 3.        Here, the appellant’s
representative informed the administrative judge at the beginning of the hearing
that the subject witness was unable to testify due to a family emergency. Initial
Appeal File (IAF), Tab 15, Hearing Recording (HR) at 0:44 to 1:15 (statement of

2
  The appellant provides numerous documents with her petition for review. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 6-96. Insofar as none of these documents constitute new evidence, a different
outcome is not warranted. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d) (“To constitute new evidence,
the information contained in the documents, not just the documents themselves, must
have been unavailable despite due diligence when the record closed.”). Moreover, even
considering such additional documentation, we find that it does not change the outcome
of this appeal. See Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980)
(observing that the Board generally will not grant a petition for review based on new
evidence absent a showing that it is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different
from that of the initial decision).
                                                                                     3

the appellant’s representative).    He did not request a continuance in order to
obtain her testimony; instead, he indicated that he would call another witness in
her stead. 3   HR at 1:29 to 1:36 (statement of the appellant’s representative).
Thus, the appellant’s assertion that the hearing “was not allowed to be postponed”
is both unsubstantiated by the record and unavailing insofar as neither she nor her
representative timely requested a continuance. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3; see Lohr v.
Department of the Air Force, 24 M.S.P.R. 383, 386 (1984). To the extent the
appellant faults her representative for failing to request a continuance, her
contention is unavailing insofar as the Board has routinely held that appellants
are responsible for the actions and inactions of their chosen representatives.
See, e.g., Sparks v. U.S. Postal Service, 32 M.S.P.R. 422, 425 (1987).
      In finding that the appellant failed to prove her affirmative defense of sex
discrimination on the basis of disparate treatment, the administrative judge
concluded that the appellant had failed to identify a similarly situated comparator
employee.      IAF, Tab 16, Initial Decision (ID) at 14-15.        In so finding, he
reasoned that OPM had only charged the alleged comparator employee with one
charge, whereas it had levied three charges against the appellant.          ID at 15.
The Board has held that the similarity of comparative employees in a disparate
treatment case is governed by the similarity of their conduct and related
circumstances, not by what charges an agency chooses to bring against them;
thus, this was a misstatement. See Spahn v. Department of Justice, 93 M.S.P.R.
195, ¶¶ 13-14 (2003).     However, insofar as we agree with the administrative
judge’s finding that the alleged comparator employee was able to provide
mitigating circumstances whereas the appellant was not, we find his misstatement
harmless. ID at 15; see Adams v. Department of Labor, 112 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶ 13
(2009) (explaining that, for other employees to be deemed similarly situated, they
must have, among other things, engaged in similar conduct without differentiating

3
 He subsequently elected not to call the substitute witness after learning that she was
unavailable. HR at 41:46 to 42:08 (statement of the appellant’s representative).
                                                                                      4

or mitigating circumstances); see also Panter v. Department of the Air Force ,
22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (explaining that an adjudicatory error that is not
prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an
initial decision).

                         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.
      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).

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.
                                                                                        5

      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. 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
                                                                                  6

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

      (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
                                                                                      7

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).
      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

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.
                                                                             8

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.