Court Opinion

ID: 9961574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:01:03.554826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:16.524227
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

    CHARLES MEDWETZ,                             DOCKET NUMBER
                Appellant,                       PH-0752-22-0113-I-1

               v.

    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                      DATE: April 18, 2024
                Agency.

         THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

        Matthew Ricci , Esquire, Albany, New York, for the appellant.

        David P. Tomaszewski , Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, 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
dismissed his involuntary resignation 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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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 supplement the
administrative judge’s analysis regarding the appellant’s allegations of coercion ,
we AFFIRM the initial decision.

The appellant’s arguments do not warrant a different outcome.
      The appellant argues that the Board has jurisdiction over his allegedly
involuntary resignation because “a final decision was issued in this matter” prior
to his resignation. 2 Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 10-13. To support
this argument, the appellant relies largely on the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Mays v. Department of
Transportation, 27 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1994), which, he contends, “is closely
analogous to this appeal.” Id. at 12. We find this argument unpersuasive.
      In Mays, the Federal Circuit analyzed 5 U.S.C. § 7701(j) and concluded
that the subject provision gives the Board jurisdiction to hear the appeal of an
employee who retires because his employing agency has issued a decision to
remove him, without regard to whether the retirement date falls on or before the
effective date of the removal. Mays, 27 F.3d at 1580-81. Following the issuance
of Mays, however, the Board has explained that the principle of law enumerated
therein is applicable only in retirement appeals, i.e., it is inapplicable when, as
2
  On January 31, 2022, the agency issued a decision on removal, informing the appellant
that his removal would be effective the following day, on February 1, 2022. Initial
Appeal File, Tab 5 at 22-25. The appellant resigned from his position effective
January 31, 2022. Id. at 18, 20.
                                                                                   3

here, an appellant has resigned from his position. E.g., Baldwin v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 111 M.S.P.R. 586, ¶ 41 (2009) (stating that the principle
enumerated in Mays does not apply to resignations effected in the face of a
removal decision); Robinson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 72 M.S.P.R. 444,
447 (1996) (indicating that the applicability of Mays hinged on whether an
appellant retired rather than resigned).   Accordingly, the appellant’s argument
does not warrant a different outcome.
       The appellant contends that his removal was coerced and therefore that the
Board has jurisdiction over the matter as a constructive adverse action. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 13-15.    To this end, he asserts that he was subjected to a 6 -hour
interview regarding his alleged misconduct, which took place in a “hot, congested
room,” and that, during the interview, detectives threatened to polygraph him,
told him to “start cooperating, or it [would] only get worse for [him],” accused
him of “illicit drug use,” and instructed him to draft a written statement regarding
the alleged misconduct containing specific words, e.g., “knowingly” and
“intentionally.”   Id. at 13.   He also asserts that, during his meeting with the
deciding official, he was told that “his only other alternative to the removal was
to resign,” and that, if he did not resign, he would be removed the following day.
Id. at 14. These contentions do not warrant a different outcome.
       The Board has recognized that employee-initiated actions that appear
voluntary on their face are not always so and that the Board may have jurisdiction
over such actions as constructive adverse actions. Bean v. U.S. Postal Service,
120 M.S.P.R. 397, ¶ 7 (2013). All constructive adverse actions have two things
in common: (1) the employee lacked a meaningful choice in the matter; and (2) it
was the agency’s wrongful actions that deprived the employee of that choice. Id.,
¶ 8.   In analyzing voluntariness, the touchstone is whether, considering the
totality of the circumstances, factors operated on the employee’s decision-making
process that deprived him of his freedom of choice.       Vitale v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 107 M.S.P.R. 501, ¶ 19 (2007); see Bean, 120 M.S.P.R. 397,
                                                                                    4

¶¶ 8, 11 (explaining that the agency’s wrongful actions must have deprived the
employee of a meaningful choice). The mere fact that an employee is faced with
the unpleasant choice of either resigning or opposing a potential removal for
cause does not rebut the presumed voluntariness of his choice. Lloyd v. Small
Business Administration, 96 M.S.P.R. 518, ¶ 3 (2004). Rather, for a resignation
in such circumstances to be considered involuntary and therefore appealable as a
constructive removal, the employee must establish that the agency did not have
reasonable grounds for proposing removal.         Id.   Here, the appellant has not
alleged that the agency lacked reasonable grounds for either investigating or
proposing his removal from Federal service; indeed, he has not alleged that he did
not engage in the misconduct with which he was charged. Accordingly, the fact
that the deciding official presented him with the unpleasant choice of either
resigning or opposing a removal action does not render his election to resign
involuntary. 3

We modify the initial decision.
      Although not raised by appellant on review, in the initial decision, the
administrative judge reasoned that the appellant’s investigatory interview “could
not have been so traumatic as to compel his immediate resignation” because “it
occurred 10 weeks before the appellant resigned.”        Initial Appeal File, Tab 7,
Initial Decision at 6.   The Federal Circuit has found that, at the jurisdictional
stage of a Board proceeding, the Board should not discount the probative value of
an allegation that supports a claim of involuntariness because of the passage of
time. Trinkl v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 727 F. App’x 1007, 1010-11
(Fed. Cir. 2018). 4      Here, however, even assuming that the appellant’s
3
  The appellant does not discernably challenge the administrative judge’s conclusion
that he did “not appear to be claiming [that] his resignation was the product of
misinformation or deception on the part of the agency.” Initial Appeal File, Tab 7,
Initial Decision at 5.
4
  The Board has found that it may rely on unpublished decisions of the Federal Circuit
when, as here, it finds the court’s reasoning persuasive. E.g., Vores v. Department of
the Army, 109 M.S.P.R. 191, ¶ 21 (2008), aff’d, 324 F. App’x 883 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
                                                                                      5

interview-related allegations support a claim of involuntariness that the
administrative judge improperly discounted, we find that a different outcome is
not warranted.     Indeed, the appellant’s allegations regarding his interview,
considered as part of the totality of the alleged circumstances leading up to his
resignation, do not constitute a nonfrivolous allegation that his resignation was
coerced.
      Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision as modified.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      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
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.

5
  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.
                                                                                         6

      (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
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
                                                                                  7

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,
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
                                                                                      8

      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. 6 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).

6
   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.
                                                                                  9

      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.
      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.