Court Opinion

ID: 9384203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 06:00:12.788955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.282054
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

CHRISTOPHER M. JOSEPH,                          DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         NY-0752-17-0019-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: March 31, 2023
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Christopher M. Joseph, Central Islip, New York, pro se.

      Michael J. Berger, Esquire, Brooklyn, New York, for the agency.

      Steven A. Snyder, Northport, New York, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                          Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                           Raymond A. Limon, Member
                           Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
  Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                      2

                                     FINAL ORDER

¶1        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his alleged involuntary resignation and within-grade increase (WIGI)
     denial 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 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 result ing 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).

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2        The appellant filed an appeal alleging that his resignation was involuntary
     and that the agency improperly denied him a WIGI. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 1 at 5. He also asserted that he was discriminated against and harassed by
     his supervisor, and he included a copy of a September 29, 2016 notice proposing
     his removal for unacceptable performance. Id. at 7, 10-14. Because it appeared
     that the Board might not have jurisdiction over his appeal, the administrative
     judge ordered the appellant to submit evidence and argument establishing a
     nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 4. The administrative judge
                                                                                          3

     also scheduled a telephonic status conference. IAF, Tab 5. The appellant did
     not file a response or appear for the conference.
¶3        Thereafter, the administrative judge issued an initial decision, finding that
     the appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction over either
     his involuntary resignation claim or his claim that the agency improperly denied
     his WIGI. IAF, Tab 9, Initial Decision (ID) at 3-5. She therefore dismissed the
     appeal for lack of jurisdiction without holding the requested hearing. ID at 1, 5.
¶4        The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response, and the appellant has filed a reply
     to the agency’s response. PFR File, Tabs 3-4.
¶5        An employee-initiated action, such as a resignation, is presumed to be
     voluntary unless the appellant presents sufficient evidence to establish that the
     action was obtained through duress, coercion, or misinformation, or if the
     appellant demonstrates that the employer engaged in a course of action that made
     working conditions so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the
     appellant’s position would have felt compelled to resign.         See Vaughan v.
     Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R. 493, ¶ 11 (2011); Miller v. Department
     of Homeland Security, 111 M.S.P.R. 325, ¶ 8 (2009), aff’d per curiam,
     361 F. App’x 134 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The reasonable person test is an objective
     test and does not depend on the appellant’s subjective characterization of the
     agency’s actions. See Markon v. Department of State, 71 M.S.P.R. 574, 577-78
     (1996). Furthermore, when an appellant raises allegations of discrimination in
     connection with an involuntariness claim, evidence of discrimination may be
     considered only in terms of the standard for voluntariness. Id. at 578. Thus, in
     an involuntary resignation appeal, evidence of discrimination goes to the
     ultimate question of coercion, i.e., whether under all of the circumstances,
     working conditions were made so difficult by the agency that a reasonable
     person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. Id.
                                                                                     4

¶6        Below, the appellant provided few facts—and no evidence—in support of
     his claim that his resignation was involuntary.        Rather, he provided bare
     assertions that the agency improperly placed him on a performance improvement
     plan, denied his WIGI, and discriminated against him.         IAF, Tab 1 at 7.
     Accordingly, we agree with the administrative judge’s finding that the appellant
     failed to nonfrivolously allege involuntariness. ID at 3-4.
¶7        On review, the appellant expands on the factual allegations he made below.
     PFR File, Tabs 1, 4. All of these new arguments, however, are based on facts
     that were known to him while his appeal was pending before the administrati ve
     judge, and he could have raised them below in response to the administrative
     judge’s jurisdictional order or at the status conference scheduled to discuss
     jurisdiction. Generally, the Board will not consider an argument raised for the
     first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and
     material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence.
     Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980).             The
     appellant here has not attempted to make his required showing, and we thus have
     not relied on his new arguments on review. Nevertheless, even if we were to
     consider them, they do not affect the outcome of the case.
¶8        A nonfrivolous allegation is an allegation of fact that, if proven, could
     establish a prima facie case that the Board has jurisdiction over the appeal. See,
     e.g., Williams v. Department of Agriculture, 106 M.S.P.R. 677, ¶ 10 (2007). The
     appellant’s new arguments, even if he were able to prove them, would not show
     that his resignation was involuntary. For example, the appellant challenges the
     merits of his 1-day suspension and the denial of his WIGI, and he sets forth his
     version of events concerning his alleged performance and disciplinary issues that
     occurred prior to his resignation. PFR File, Tab 4. However, he has not alleged
     facts to show that his working conditions were so intolerable such that a
     reasonable person in his position would have felt compelled to resign.        See
     Miller v. Department of Defense, 85 M.S.P.R. 310, ¶ 32 (2000) (finding that
                                                                                           5

     dissatisfaction with work assignments, a feeling of being unfairly criticized, or
     difficult or unpleasant working conditions generally are not so intolerable as to
     compel a reasonable person to resign).
¶9         In addition, the fact that an employee is faced with the unpleasant choice of
     either resigning or opposing a potential removal action does not rebut the
     presumed voluntariness of his ultimate choice of resignation, unless the
     employee can show that the agency knew or should have known that the reason
     for the threatened removal could not be substantiated. Harris v. Department of
     Veterans Affairs, 114 M.S.P.R. 239, ¶ 8 (2010). Here, the appellant makes no
     factual allegations that would even suggest that the agency was awar e that it
     could not prove its charges. See Garcia v. Department of Homeland Security,
     437 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) (concluding that a resignation is
     not involuntary if the employee had a choice of whether to resign or contest the
     validity of the agency action). We find, therefore, that the administrative judge
     correctly dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 3

                              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

     3
       The appellant does not appear to challenge the administrative judge’s finding that he
     failed to nonfrivolously allege jurisdiction over the denial of his WIGI as an otherwise
     appealable action, and we discern no basis to disturb that finding.
     4
       Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, t he 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

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
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
                                                                                    7

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
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
                                                                                      8

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 com mercial 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

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.
                                                                                  9

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.

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                       10

      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.