Court Opinion

ID: 9839539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 15:02:16.134316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.518786
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1341   Document: 31     Page: 1   Filed: 08/08/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                      DAVID SHU,
                       Petitioner

                            v.

         UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                       2023-1341
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in Nos. SF-0353-11-0065-C-1, SF-0353-11-0065-X-1.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: August 8, 2023
                 ______________________

    DAVID SHU, Camarillo, CA, pro se.

     CHRISTOPHER L. HARLOW, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
 REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON,
 PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

   Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
                       Judges.
Case: 23-1341    Document: 31     Page: 2    Filed: 08/08/2023

 2                                               SHU v. USPS

 PER CURIAM.
      David Shu petitions for review of the final decision of
 the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) in Shu v.
 U.S. Postal Service, Docket Nos. SF-0353-11-0065-X-1 and
 SF-0353-11-0065-C-1, slip op. (M.S.P.B. Nov. 7, 2022), 1
 which dismissed Mr. Shu’s petition for enforcement of the
 Board’s earlier September 25, 2014, decision in Shu v. U.S.
 Postal Service, Docket No. SF-0353-11-0065-B-2, slip op.
 (the “2014 Order”). 2 For the reasons set forth below, we
 affirm the Board’s final decision.
                              I
     Mr. Shu began working for the United States Postal
 Service (“agency”) in the Woodland Hills, California, Post
 Office as a part-time flexible letter carrier on March 23,
 2002. On September 22, 2003, Mr. Shu suffered a back in-
 jury that led him to being absent from work starting Sep-
 tember 24, 2003. On September 30, 2003, the agency
 notified Mr. Shu that he was absent without leave
 (“AWOL”) and on unscheduled absent status since Septem-
 ber 24, 2003. On October 20, 2003, Mr. Shu filed a workers’
 compensation claim for his September 22, 2003, injury. On
 November 7, 2003, the agency issued a Notice of Removal
 to Mr. Shu based on the charge of Irregular Attend-
 ance/AWOL, and he was removed from his job on December
 12, 2003.
     While Mr. Shu was out of his letter carrier job with the
 agency, his request for workers’ compensation languished
 in the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
 (“OWCP”). On March 14, 2008, OWCP issued a decision on
 Mr. Shu’s October 20, 2003, claim, ruling that he was

     1   The relevant parts of the final decision can be
 found in Petitioner’s Appendix 3–11.
     2   The 2014 Order can be found in Petitioner’s Appen-
 dix 53–74.
Case: 23-1341    Document: 31      Page: 3    Filed: 08/08/2023

 SHU v. USPS                                                3

 temporarily totally disabled between September 24 and
 October 15, 2003, and entitled to compensation for that pe-
 riod. Nearly a year after the OWCP decision, on March 1,
 2009, Mr. Shu requested that he be restored to employ-
 ment with the agency, but for reasons undisclosed on the
 record before this court the agency rejected his request on
 April 27, 2009. A little over a year later, OWCP issued an
 additional decision finding that Mr. Shu suffered from a
 compensable injury between September 23 and November
 6, 2003. On August 27, 2010, Mr. Shu renewed his request
 to the agency for restoration to duty, and the agency offered
 him a letter carrier position at the Santa Maria, California,
 Post Office. Mr. Shu accepted the offer and was restored to
 duty on November 6, 2010.
     Although restored to duty, Mr. Shu appealed to the
 Board, arguing that the agency had erred in the timing and
 other details of his restoration to duty. On September 25,
 2014, the administrative judge assigned to his appeal is-
 sued the 2014 Order finding that the agency’s delay in re-
 storing Mr. Shu to duty between March 1, 2009 (the date
 of Mr. Shu’s request for reinstatement) and November 6,
 2010 (the date he was restored to work) was an improper
 denial of restoration. The administrative judge ordered the
 agency to: (1) restore Mr. Shu as of March 1, 2009, (2) pay
 Mr. Shu the appropriate amount of back pay, (3) provide
 Mr. Shu with service credit (for the purposes of rights and
 benefits based on seniority and length of service pursuant
 to 5 C.F.R. § 353.107) for the entire period of absence, from
 December 12, 2003 (the date of his removal) to November
 6, 2010 (the date he returned to work upon reinstatement),
 and (4) inform Mr. Shu in writing of all actions taken to
 comply with the initial decision. Pet’r’s App. 68–69.
     Whether Mr. Shu had made an actual request for res-
 toration at some time before his March 1, 2009, request,
 and hence would be entitled to back pay before March 1,
 2009, was at issue before the administrative judge in the
 2014 Order. Mr. Shu’s arguments seeking to establish an
Case: 23-1341    Document: 31      Page: 4    Filed: 08/08/2023

 4                                                SHU v. USPS

 earlier date on which he actually made a request for resto-
 ration were considered but rejected by the administrative
 judge in his finding that the date of Mr. Shu’s request for
 restoration was March 1, 2009. Mr. Shu did not appeal the
 administrative judge’s back pay effective date, and the
 2014 Order became a final decision on October 30, 2014.
      On November 21, 2014, Mr. Shu filed a petition for en-
 forcement of the 2014 Order, which remanded the case to
 the agency to perform the curative steps for the agency’s
 improper denial of restoration. Over the course of multiple
 pleadings, Mr. Shu alleged that the agency failed to comply
 with the 2014 Order by: (1) failing to provide Mr. Shu with
 appropriate seniority status and service credit for the spec-
 ified times, (2) improperly removing him from service, and
 (3) failing to pay him the correct amount of back pay and
 interest.
      On June 29, 2016, the administrative judge issued a
 compliance initial decision granting Mr. Shu’s petition for
 enforcement in part. Specifically, the administrative judge
 found the agency not in compliance because it failed to:
 (1) provide a sufficient explanation of the back pay check
 issued to Mr. Shu, (2) provide an explanation of how it cal-
 culated Mr. Shu’s step increase, (3) provide an explanation
 of how it arrived at the date of February 25, 2005, for re-
 tirement service credit, and (4) properly withhold
 Mr. Shu’s unemployment compensation withholding.
 Pet’r’s App. 6. To cure these shortcomings, the administra-
 tive judge specifically ordered the agency to (1) provide ev-
 idence that it paid Mr. Shu all back pay, interest and
 benefits for the back pay period, along with a narrative ex-
 planation of how the agency arrived at its calculations,
 (2) provide evidence that it credited the appropriate
 amount of retirement service to Mr. Shu for the back pay
 period, with narrative explanation of the amount of service,
 and (3) remit appropriate payment to the State of Nevada
 for the unemployment compensation withheld from
Case: 23-1341    Document: 31      Page: 5    Filed: 08/08/2023

 SHU v. USPS                                                5

 Mr. Shu’s back pay and provide evidence of such payment
 to the State of Nevada. Id. at 6, 43.
      On August 26, 2016, the agency submitted a statement
 of compliance to the administrative judge, which explained
 that the agency had satisfied the specific requirements of
 the initial compliance decision as to the back pay calcula-
 tions, but the statement lacked any explanation as to how
 the agency calculated Mr. Shu’s step increase for the back
 pay period, and further lacked any evidence that the
 agency had remitted appropriate payment to the State of
 Nevada for unemployment compensation withheld from
 Mr. Shu’s back pay. On July 31, 2017, the Board issued an
 order requesting further information from the agency on
 the step increase and unemployment compensation with-
 holding issues. The agency responded to the Board on Au-
 gust 14, 2017, that it had remitted the unemployment
 funds to the State of Nevada and provided evidence of the
 remittance. But the agency said it was still working on its
 narrative for calculation of Mr. Shu’s step increase date
 and would provide the necessary information “shortly
 thereafter.” Id. at 8. Almost a year later, after two more
 requests by the Board for further information, the agency
 on August 16, 2018, filed a new submission that explained
 how employee step increases are calculated for employees
 in non-pay status and included evidence supporting its ex-
 planation.
                              II
      On November 7, 2022, the Board issued the final deci-
 sion, which is the subject of Mr. Shu’s petition for review.
 In its final decision, the Board recited the lengthy history
 of the case, beginning with Mr. Shu’s petition to enforce the
 Board’s 2014 Order. The Board determined that the out-
 standing compliance issues were the agency’s obligations
 to (1) provide a narrative explanation of its back pay calcu-
 lations, (2) explain Mr. Shu’s step increase date,
 (3) demonstrate that it had remitted unemployment
Case: 23-1341    Document: 31       Page: 6   Filed: 08/08/2023

 6                                                SHU v. USPS

 compensation to the State of Nevada, and (4) provide the
 appropriate amount of retirement service credit to
 Mr. Shu. Pet’r’s App. 10.
     The Board’s final decision concluded that the agency’s
 combined submissions demonstrate that the agency had
 reached full compliance with the outstanding compliance
 issues. Specifically, and in each instance citing record evi-
 dence, the Board found the agency satisfied its back pay,
 step increase, unemployment compensation and retire-
 ment service credit obligations. Accordingly, the Board dis-
 missed Mr. Shu’s petition for enforcement of the Board’s
 2014 Order.
     Mr. Shu timely petitioned for review of the Board’s No-
 vember 7, 2022, final decision, and we have jurisdiction
 over his petition pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) and
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                              III
     This court reviews a final decision of the Board under
 a specific standard of review. We must affirm the Board’s
 final decision unless we determine that the final decision
 is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in ac-
 cordance with law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
 See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Marino v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 243
 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
     Mr. Shu argues that the Board erred in dismissing his
 enforcement petition on six enumerated issues.
     His first issue relates to the time period after he was
 restored to duty in 2010. On November 4, 2013, the agency
 proposed to remove Mr. Shu for Unacceptable Con-
 duct/Failure to Report an Accident occurring on September
 21, 2013. In 2015, an arbitrator found just cause for the
 removal, and Mr. Shu appealed his removal to the Board.
 The Board determined that his removal was unrelated to
 his previous restoration to duty following his compensable
 injury, and that it lacked jurisdiction over his appeal from
Case: 23-1341     Document: 31     Page: 7    Filed: 08/08/2023

 SHU v. USPS                                                 7

 his removal based on the automobile accident. This court
 affirmed the Board’s dismissal of his challenge to his re-
 moval. See Shu v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 689 F. App’x 971,
 974 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Mr. Shu’s first issue claims that the
 agency failed to consider his restored service credit in con-
 nection with his removal. In response, the agency points
 out that Mr. Shu’s removal in 2015 is unrelated to the
 Board’s 2014 Order, and that any complaint about restored
 service credit related to the removal should have been
 raised in his challenge to the removal action. Further, the
 agency points out that Mr. Shu did not present this issue
 to the Board when it considered compliance with the
 Board’s 2014 Order. Mr. Shu on reply argues that the ar-
 bitration decision is “illegitimate,” Petitioner’s Informal
 Reply Br. 2, but does not otherwise challenge the agency’s
 argument that this issue lacks merit. We agree with the
 agency that there is no merit to Mr. Shu’s first issue.
      The second enumerated issue concerns a reduction to
 Mr. Shu’s back pay award. The agency withheld from
 Mr. Shu’s back pay award $27,117.00 that he had collected
 as unemployment benefits due to his compensable injury.
 Mr. Shu argues that his private sector employer for the pe-
 riod leading up to his agency unemployment period should
 be deemed liable to reimburse the State of Nevada, not the
 agency, a result that would increase the back pay due to
 him from the agency. As the agency demonstrates in re-
 sponse, the law is clear that the employer liable to pay back
 pay is the employer obligated to reimburse the state, and
 it is undeniable that it is the agency, not some prior private
 sector employer, that is liable for back pay in this case.
 Resp’t’s Informal Resp. 7 (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 612.371,
 612.055); see Shu v. U.S. Postal Serv., Docket No. SF-0353-
Case: 23-1341     Document: 31     Page: 8    Filed: 08/08/2023

 8                                                 SHU v. USPS

 11-0065-C-1, slip op. at 9 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 21, 2016). 3
 Mr. Shu’s second enumerated issue lacks merit.
     For his third enumerated issue, Mr. Shu contends that
 he is entitled to back pay beginning September 23, 2003,
 rather than March 1, 2009. The agency argues, as noted
 above in our recitation of the case history, this very issue
 was raised and finally decided by the Board’s 2014 Order,
 which Mr. Shu did not contest. Furthermore, were the is-
 sue still alive, the agency points out that under settled
 Board law, back pay dates from the date of an employee’s
 request for restoration, and not earlier. See Shiflett v. U.S.
 Postal Serv., 51 M.S.P.R. 31, 33–34, Docket No.
 PH035386C0422, 1991 WL 217314 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 23,
 1991); New v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 2007 M.S.P.B. 166,
 ¶ 8, aff’d, 293 F. App’x 779, 782 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Mr. Shu’s
 third enumerated issue lacks merit.
      In his fourth enumerated issue, Mr. Shu contends that
 his position at the Santa Maria Post Office was engineered
 to deprive him of his seniority rights during the period of
 his employment up to his removal in 2015 following the un-
 reported vehicle accident. As the agency demonstrates in
 response, Mr. Shu offers no evidence that his employment
 at the Santa Maria office was improper, and further, that
 a Board decision on December 21, 2016, had determined
 that even if his seniority rights had been in error up to the
 date of his removal, he had offered no proof that the error
 caused any tangible harm, such as lost overtime that would
 have been earned up to his removal under correct seniority
 rights. Mr. Shu offers no more than his bare allegation
 that his seniority rights were miscalculated during his
 Santa Maria office tenure, and the agency proffers substan-
 tial evidence that neuters this issue.

     3  This order can be found in Petitioner’s Appendix
 13–25. Page 9 is at Petitioner’s Appendix 21.
Case: 23-1341    Document: 31      Page: 9    Filed: 08/08/2023

 SHU v. USPS                                                9

     Mr. Shu’s fifth enumerated issue involves his Thrift
 Savings Plan (“TSP”). As the Board noted in the decision
 under review, the administrative judge did not explicitly
 address Mr. Shu’s contention that the agency had failed
 properly to account for Mr. Shu’s five percent thrift savings
 contribution election. Consequently, the Board reviewed
 the record evidence on the agency’s actions regarding
 Mr. Shu’s TSP. Citing six specific parts of the record, the
 Board concluded that the agency had properly honored
 Mr. Shu’s request for a five percent contribution from his
 awarded back pay to his TSP and held that the agency had
 provided detailed and credible documentation reflecting
 both TSP withholdings from Mr. Shu’s back pay and
 matching contributions from the agency, along with corre-
 sponding explanations. As the agency correctly notes, alt-
 hough Mr. Shu generally complains that the Board erred
 on this issue, he does not challenge any of the documenta-
 tion upon which the Board relied. The agency presents
 substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that
 the agency fully complied with its obligations regarding
 Mr. Shu’s TSP, and we consequently reject Mr. Shu’s fifth
 enumerated challenge to the Board’s final decision.
     Finally, Mr. Shu’s sixth enumerated issue is whether
 his restoration rights include entitlement to a retroactive
 uniform allowance (i.e., to reimburse a U.S. Postal Service
 employee for the cost of the uniform the employee is re-
 quired to wear when on duty) between 2003 and 2010,
 when Mr. Shu was not employed by the agency. As with
 the TSP issue, the Board noted that the administrative
 judge had not explicitly addressed this issue. The Board,
 after reviewing the agency’s Employee and Labor Relations
 Manual on the subject of uniform allowance, concluded
 that uniforms are appropriate “while performing duties.”
 Pet’r’s App. 17. Because Mr. Shu had not performed duties
 between 2003 and 2010, the Board found him ineligible for
 any uniform allowance. In the context of a restoration ap-
 peal, the Board will not order an agency to act in a way that
Case: 23-1341    Document: 31     Page: 10   Filed: 08/08/2023

 10                                              SHU v. USPS

 would put an appellant in a better position than if the
 wrongful action had not happened. See Corum v. U.S.
 Postal Serv., 2012 M.S.P.B. 81, ¶ 21. Accordingly, the
 Board held that the agency had no duty to provide Mr. Shu
 with a uniform allowance for the time he was not required
 to purchase and wear a required uniform. Nonetheless,
 Mr. Shu insists before this court that the agency owes him
 a uniform allowance for the time he was not in service. His
 argument is wholly without merit.
                        CONCLUSION
     After thorough review of the record in this case, it is
 clear that substantial evidence supports the Board’s hold-
 ing that the agency is in full compliance with the Board’s
 2014 Order, which (a) found the agency had failed to re-
 store Mr. Shu properly to his position, after the agency im-
 properly removed him for AWOL during a time he suffered
 a compensable work-related injury, and (b) ordered specific
 restoration actions to be taken by the agency. The Board’s
 decision to deny Mr. Shu’s petition to enforce the Board’s
 2014 Order is accordingly affirmed.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.