Court Opinion

ID: 9960495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 15:00:32.135659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:32.417356
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

    EUGENE JOHNSON,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                      PH-0752-19-0206-I-1

               v.

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,                      DATE: April 15, 2024
                Agency.

         THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

        Clark D. Browne , Clinton, Maryland, for the appellant.

        Andrew D. Linenberg , Esquire, and Brian J. Sheppard , Esquire,
          Washington, D.C., for the agency.

        Darian Pinkston-Clark and Roburt C. Yale , Washington Navy Yard, D.C.,
          for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
sustained his reduction in grade. On petition for review, the appellant argues that
the agency failed to prove the failure to follow reporting instructions charge and

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

one of the specifications of the unacceptable performance charge. Petition for
Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3. He also reasserts that the agency improperly
failed to place him on a performance improvement plan, failed to send him to
“Supervisory School,” and reduced his grade in reprisal for his prior equal
employment opportunity (EEO) activity. Id. at 2. 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.          Except as expressly
MODIFIED to provide the appropriate standard for EEO reprisal claims, we
AFFIRM the initial decision.
      The administrative judge correctly sustained the failure to follow reporting
instructions charge.   Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 17, Initial Decision (ID)
at 3-4. In sustaining the unacceptable performance charge, she sustained 13 of
the 16 specifications. ID at 4-12. Although we agree with her decision to sustain
11 of those 13 specifications, it is not clear to us that the record supports her
decision to sustain specifications P and R, which concern the appellant’s failure
to respond to emails from his supervisor regarding his subordinates’ failure to
attend training and to refuel vehicles. ID at 11-12; IAF, Tab 10 at 11. In the
initial decision, the administrative judge considered the emails to which the
agency claims the appellant failed to respond, the proposal notice, and the
                                                                                    3

appellant’s failure to dispute these specifications. ID at 11-12; IAF, Tab 12 at 30,
32.   However, because the specifications allege that the appellant failed to
respond to the emails, the emails themselves cannot prove that the appellant
failed to respond. IAF, Tab 12 at 30, 32. Regardless, proof of one or more, but
not all, of the supporting specifications is sufficient to sustain a charge. Alvarado
v. Department of the Air Force, 103 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 16 (2006), aff’d, 626 F. Supp.
2d 1140 (D.N.M. 2009), aff’d, 490 F. App’x 932 (10th Cir. 2012). Accordingly,
because the administrative judge appropriately sustained 11 other specifications,
we agree with her decision to sustain the unacceptable performance charge.
       In concluding that the appellant failed to establish his claim of reprisal due
to his filing an EEO complaint based on his race and age, the administrative judge
found that “there was nothing to support finding a genuine nexus between the
alleged retaliation and the demotion action.” ID at 17. On review, the appellant
reasserts this claim.    PFR File, Tab 1 at 2.       Although we agree with the
administrative judge’s ultimate conclusion that the appellant failed to establish
this affirmative defense, we clarify here the proper standard for EEO reprisal
claims based on race and age.
       An appellant may prove an affirmative defense of retaliation for Title VII
activity by showing that his protected activity was at least a motivating factor,
i.e., played any part in the agency’s action. Pridgen v. Office of Management and
Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 20-22.          The appellant may meet this burden by
submitting any combination of direct or indirect evidence, including evidence of
pretext, comparator evidence, and evidence of suspicious timing or other actions
or statements that, taken alone or together, could raise an inference of retaliation.
Id., ¶ 22.
       Here, it does not appear that the EEO complaint is included in the record,
and therefore, it is not clear when the appellant filed it. Regarding the deciding
official, the appellant has neither alleged nor proven that he was aware of the
appellant’s EEO complaint. IAF, Tab 9 at 3, Tab 16 at 1; PFR File, Tab 1 at 2.
                                                                                      4

Further, although the proposing official stated in an affidavit that he was aware of
the EEO complaint, he nonetheless did not state when he became aware of it. 2
IAF, Tab 16 at 30. Additionally, the appellant’s supervisor, who could have had
influence over the proposal action given that many of the specifications of the
unacceptable performance charge concerned the appellant’s performance of duties
under his supervision, stated that he was not aware of the EEO complaint until
after the agency proposed the appellant’s reduction in grade. Id. at 15. Thus, we
find that the appellant has failed to prove that any agency official responsible for
his grade reduction had knowledge of the EEO complaint at issue. Accordingly,
we find that the appellant failed to establish that his EEO complaint was a
motivating factor in his reduction in grade, and we modify the initial decision in
that regard.    Because we affirm the administrative judge’s finding that the
appellant failed to show that any prohibited consideration was a motivating factor
in the agency’s action, we need not resolve the issue of whether the appellant
proved that discrimination or retaliation was a “but-for” cause of the agency’s
decisions. See Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 20-22, 29-33.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      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

2
  The date of the proposing official’s declaration is January 28, 2019. IAF, Tab 16
at 31. Thus, we cannot conclude that, just because he stated that he was aware of the
EEO complete on that date, he also was aware of the EEO complaint prior to the
issuance of the proposed agency action on September 17, 2018. IAF, Tab 10 at 7.
3
  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

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).
      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
                                                                                    6

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
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,
                                                                                      7

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
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. 4 The court of appeals must receive your

4
   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,
                                                                                  8

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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                        9

      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.