Court Opinion

ID: 9380705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 06:00:11.638796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.884168
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JEAN R. GERMAIN,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        NY-4324-21-0117-I-1

                  v.

     FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,                         DATE: March 20, 2023
                  Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jean R. Germain, Princeton, New Jersey, pro se.

           Linda Ajawara and Richard Grant, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     1994 (USERRA) appeal for adjudicatory efficiency. For the reasons discussed
     below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE the initial
     decision, and REMAND the case to the New York Field Office for further
     adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant was employed as a CN-51 Examiner for the Consumer
     Financial Protection Bureau in New York City.        Germain v. Federal Reserve
     System, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-21-0042-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0042 IAF),
     Tab 1 at 7. Effective December 7, 2020, the agency removed the appellant from
     his position for disrespectful conduct and making an inflammatory statement. Id.
     at 29-36. On January 7, 2021, the appellant appealed his removal to the Board.
     0042 IAF, Tab 1 at 3, 5.       During his appeal, the appellant raised various
     affirmative defenses, including a violation of his rights under USERRA.
     0042 IAF, Tab 89 at 2, Tab 93 at 1. The appellant’s requested hearing was held
     on September 13, 2021. 0042 IAF, Tab 100, Hearing Recording. Thereafter, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming the appellant’s removal,
     and the appellant filed a petition for review of that initial decision, which is
     pending before the Board and will be addressed in a separately issued decision .
     0042 IAF, Tab 109, Initial Decision; Germain v. Federal Reserve System, MSPB
     Docket No. NY-0752-21-0042-I-1, Petition for Review File, Tab 1.
¶3        On June 25, 2021, the appellant filed this appeal indicating that he was
     challenging his removal.   Germain v. Federal Reserve System, MSPB Docket
     No. NY-4324-21-0117-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0117 IAF), Tab 1 at 3, 5.        He
     provided a March 23, 2021 letter stating that his Department of Labor (DOL)
     USERRA file was being referred to the Office of Special Counsel for
     consideration of legal action. 0117 IAF, Tab 3 at 4. The administrative judge
     docketed the appeal as a USERRA appeal; however , she noted that the appeal
     seemed duplicative of his prior appeal and allowed the appellant an opportunity to
                                                                                        3

     provide arguments and evidence on that issue.          0117 IAF, Tabs 6-7.      The
     appellant indicated that the same administrative judge mishandled his prior appeal
     when she repeatedly postponed his hearing and the agency withheld evidence and
     prevented certain witnesses from participating in the hearing. 0117 IAF, Tab 8
     at 5-6. The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal
     for adjudicatory efficiency. 0117 IAF, Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID) at 3. She
     found that the appellant’s USERRA claim was litigated during the prior appeal
     and would be addressed in the initial decision in that appeal. ID at 2.
¶4        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision. Petition
     for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. He asserts that he raised claims in this appeal that
     were not raised or adjudicated in the prior appeal. Id. at 6. The agency filed a
     response, PFR File, Tab 3, to which the appellant replied, PFR File, Tab 4.

                                        ANALYSIS
¶5        The administrative judge correctly set forth the legal principle that, when an
     appellant files an appeal that raises claims raised in an earlier appeal after the
     initial decision in the earlier appeal has been issued but before the full Board has
     acted on a petition for review, it is appropriate to dismiss the subsequent appeal
     on the grounds of adjudicatory efficiency. ID at 2-3; see Bean v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 120 M.S.P.R. 447, ¶ 5 (2013); Kinler v. General Services Administration,
     44 M.S.P.R. 262, 263-64 (1990). On review, the appellant argues that he raised
     five allegations in his USERRA case, but the administrative judge did not
     consider four of those allegations in his prior appeal:     (1) the agency did not
     promote him in accordance with the Veterans’ Recruitment Appointment
     authority; (2) the agency did not properly evaluate and hire him into the correct
     grade and quartile pay plan; (3) the agency offered a non-veteran a higher
     starting-onboard salary than veterans; and (4) the agency did not reasonably
     accommodate him by providing him assistance in upgrading his skills to maintain
     employment. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6, Tab 4 at 5-6. He requests that the Board
                                                                                            4

     consider his USERRA claims in this appeal. PFR File, Tab 4 at 7. Because the
     above USERRA claims raised in this appeal were not addressed in the prior Board
     appeal and thus will not be fully resolved by the prior appeal, the adjudicatory
     efficiency doctrine relied on by the administrative judge does not apply. 3
¶6         Although the appellant explicitly raises the specific allegations he made
     before DOL for the first time on review, there is no statutory time limit for filing
     an appeal under USERRA, and if an appellant raises a USERRA claim for the
     first time on review, the Board must adjudicate it. Henson v. U.S. Postal Service,
     110 M.S.P.R. 624, ¶ 10 n.6 (2009). The Board has adopted, and the U.S. Court of
     Appeals for the Federal Circuit has endorsed, a “liberal approach in determining
     whether jurisdiction exists under USERRA.” Beck v. Department of the Navy,
     120 M.S.P.R. 504, ¶ 8 (2014) (quoting Yates v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
     145 F.3d 1480, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).           Further, an appellant must receive
     explicit information on what is required to establish an appealable jurisdictional
     issue. Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641, 643-44 (Fed.
     Cir. 1985). Here, we believe that the administrative judge provided overly brief
     jurisdictional notice for the appellant’s USERRA claims in his prior appeal.
     0042 IAF, Tab 93.
¶7         Thus, on remand, the administrative judge shall inform the appellant of how
     to establish jurisdiction over his USERRA claims. See Rassenfoss v. Department
     of the Treasury, 121 M.S.P.R. 512, ¶¶ 18-19 (2014) (remanding a USERRA
     appeal when the administrative judge did not adequately apprise the appellant of

     3
       In his prior appeal, the appellant argued that his first - and second-line supervisors,
     who were the proposing and deciding officials in his removal, were motivated by
     “anti-military animus.” 0042 IAF, Tab 21 at 8, 23. He observed that his firs t-line
     supervisor threatened him for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to
     manage his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. Id. at 5-6. He also
     alleged that there were pay inequities between non -veterans and veterans in his office.
     0042 IAF, Tab 50 at 27, 29. The allegations raised in the appellant’s prior appeal differ
     from the allegations raised in the present appeal.
                                                                                       5

     the burdens of proof and the type of evidence necessary to satisfy those burdens);
     Davison v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 115 M.S.P.R. 640, ¶¶ 10-11 (2011)
     (discussing the jurisdictional prerequisites for an USERRA appeal).           After
     affording the parties an opportunity to submit evidence and argument on those
     issues, the administrative judge shall decide whether the Board has jurisdiction
     over this appeal and, if so, adjudicate the merits of this appeal after holding the
     requested hearing.   See Kirkendall v. Department of the Army, 479 F.3d 830,
     844-46 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc) (explaining that, when an appellant has
     established Board jurisdiction over his USERRA appeal, he is entitled to a
     hearing). The administrative judge shall then issue a new initial decision.

                                          ORDER
¶8        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the New York Field
     Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

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