Court Opinion

ID: 9388182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 21:00:12.851234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:18.671351
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RONNIE MONTGOMERY,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          AT-4324-20-0730-I-3

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: April 19, 2023
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Ronnie Montgomery, Horn Lake, Mississippi, pro se.

           Eric B. Fryda, Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for the agency.

           James M. Reed, Esquire, Clearwater, Florida, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision,
     which denied corrective action in his Uniformed Services Employment and
     Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) appeal. For the reasons discussed
     below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, AFFIRM the initial

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     decision insofar as it denied the appellant’s USERRA discrimination claim
     regarding his placement on enforced leave, and REMAND the case to the regional
     office for further adjudication of the appellant’s USERRA hostile work
     environment claim in accordance with this Remand Order.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant filed an appeal of his placement on enforced leave to the
     Board. Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-20-0275-
     I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 1. He alleged, in part, that his placement on enforced
     leave violated his USERRA rights. Id. at 15. The administrative judge docketed
     a new appeal concerning the appellant’s USERRA claims while the first appeal
     concerning the merits of the appellant’s placement on enforced leave and his
     affirmative defenses proceeded simultaneously.        Montgomery v. U.S. Postal
     Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-4324-20-0730-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 1.
     After finding jurisdiction over the USERRA appeal, the administrative judge held
     a joint hearing on both appeals.     Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
     Docket No. AT-4324-20-0730-I-3, Appeal File (0730 I-3 AF), Tab 20,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 1. In the USERRA matter, the administrative judge issued
     an initial decision finding that the appellant failed to prove by preponderant
     evidence that his uniformed service was a substantial or motivating factor in the
     agency’s decision to place him on enforced leave and denying corrective action.
     ID at 6-8. The appellant has filed a timely petition for review, wherein he asserts
     that the administrative judge denied him adequate discovery in his USERRA
     appeal and that the administrative judge did not apprise him of his burden of
     proof as to his hostile work environment claim arising under USERRA.
     Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-4324-20-0730-I-3,
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1-3. The appellant has also made several
     challenges to findings contained in the initial decision in his other appeal.
     PFR File, Tab 3 at 6-11. The agency has not filed a response.
                                                                                      3

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶3         We first address the appellant’s assertion that he was denied adequate
     discovery in his USERRA appeal.        PFR File, Tab 3 at 5.      Under 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.41(b)(4), an administrative judge has broad discretion in ruling on
     discovery matters. The Board will not reverse an administrative judge’s rulings
     on discovery matters absent an abuse of discretion.     Wagner v. Environmental
     Protection Agency, 54 M.S.P.R. 447, 452 (1992), aff’d, 996 F.2d 1236 (Fed. Cir.
     1993) (Table). On review, the appellant has not described the evidence he hoped
     to obtain in discovery or explain how his rights were prejudiced by the alleged
     denial of this evidence. PFR File, Tab 3 at 5. Accordingly, we find that he has
     failed to establish that the administrative judge abused his discretion in his
     discovery rulings. See Wagner, 54 M.S.P.R. at 451-52.
¶4         On review, the appellant reasserts that his placement on enforced leave
     violated his rights under USERRA. PFR File, Tab 3 at 8-10. However, he has
     not specifically challenged any findings in the initial decision. Id. We find no
     error in the administrative judge’s conclusion that the appellant failed to prove
     that the enforced leave was discriminatory based on his military service , and we
     therefore affirm it. ID at 6-8.
¶5         Next, we consider the appellant’s argument that he was not informed of his
     burden of proof to establish a hostile work environment claim unde r USERRA.
     PFR File, Tab 3 at 6.      We have reviewed the appellant’s filings before the
     administrative judge and we find that they are sufficient to timely raise a hostile
     work environment claim under USERRA and that the appellant should have
     received notice of his burden of proof to establish such a claim.             E.g.,
     Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, AT-4324-20-0730-I-2, Appeal File,
     Tab 5 at 6. The administrative judge does not appear to have acknowledged this
     claim and did not provide the appellant with the required notice. 0730 I-3 AF,
     Tab 11 at 1-4.    Accordingly, we remand this claim to the regional office and
     instruct the administrative judge to advise the appellant of his jurisdictional
                                                                                        4

     burden to establish a claim of hostile work environment under USERRA . See
     Lazard v. U.S. Postal Service, 93 M.S.P.R. 337, ¶ 9 (2003) (remanding a
     USERRA appeal wherein the administrative judge did not apprise the appellant of
     his burden of proof and methods of proving his claims).        If the administrative
     judge finds that the appellant has established jurisdiction over his claim of hostile
     work environment under USERRA, the administrative judge shall allow discovery
     as to this claim and hold a new hearing, if requested.
¶6         We acknowledge the appellant’s remaining arguments in his petition for
     review, which relate to findings contained in the initial decision in the
     enforced leave matter, Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
     No. AT-0752-20-0275-I-3. We have addressed those arguments in the Remand
     Order in that appeal and therefore we do not address them here.

                                           ORDER
¶7         For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional 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.