Court Opinion

ID: 9373503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:30.783696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.894819
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JESUS J. GONZALEZ, JR.,                         DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DA-0752-11-0078-C-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                          DATE: August 8, 2022
       SECURITY,
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

           Juan M. Gonzalez, Esquire, San Antonio, Texas, for the appellant.

           Kathleen Shipley, Megan Nicole Copley, and Felix R. Martinez Velez,
             Laredo, Texas, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                      REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     denied his petition   for     enforcement,   finding    that   he    failed   to prove
     by preponderant evidence that the agency materially breached any of the terms of

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the settlement agreement.    For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the
     appellant’s petition for review and REMAND the case to the regional office for
     further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2        The agency removed the appellant from his position as a GS-11 Border
     Patrol Agent and he filed an appeal with the Board. Gonzalez v. Department of
     Homeland Security, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-11-0078-I-1, Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 1.   During the pendency of that appeal, the parties entered into a
     settlement agreement resolving the appeal.       IAF, Tab 17.      The settlement
     provided, in pertinent part, that the appellant would withdraw his appeal, submit a
     written resignation “for personal reasons,” and would not apply for a position
     with the agency for 5 years. IAF, Tab 17 at 3-4. In exchange, the agency agreed
     to do the following:    (1) cancel the removal action; (2) replace the existing
     Standard Form (SF) 50 in the appellant’s Official Personnel File (OPF) indicating
     that he had been removed with an SF-50 indicating that he resigned “for personal
     reasons”; (3) remove all documentation regarding the removal action from the
     appellant’s OPF; and (4) refer all inquiries and requests for references regarding
     the appellant’s work performance, reason for resignation, or other employment
     matters to the agency’s Indianapolis Hiring Center and limit information provided
     in response to such requests to the information reflected in the OPF.     Id. at 4.
     The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal as
     settled and accepting the settlement agreement into the Board ’s record for
     enforcement purposes. IAF, Tab 18, Initial Decision.
¶3        The appellant filed a petition for enforcement on January 7, 2017, alleging
     that the agency breached a term of the settlement agreement when it found him
     unsuitable for employment as a contractor with a private company doing contract
     work with the agency.     MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-11-0078-C-1, Compliance
     File (CF), Tab 1.      The agency filed a response to the compliance petition
                                                                                     3

     asserting that it had not breached the agreement because the appellant had
     specifically authorized the release of information for the purposes of a
     background investigation by executing a signed waiver or alternatively, that the
     appellant himself had voluntarily disclosed the offending information leading to
     the unsuitability finding on his SF-85P background investigation questionnaire.
     CF, Tab 5 at 4-5. The agency also alleged that the appellant breached the waiting
     period provision of the agreement by applying for a position with the agency
     before 5 years had elapsed. Id. at 4.
¶4        In a compliance initial decision based on the written record, the
     administrative judge determined that the appellant had failed to submit evidence
     sufficient to demonstrate that the agency had breached a term of the settlement
     agreement. CF, Tab 8, Compliance Initial Decision (CID) at 6 -7. Alternatively,
     the administrative judge determined that, even if the agency had provided the
     disputed information to the background investigators, the appellant had
     knowingly and intentionally waived the agency’s obligation to restrict the release
     of the information by executing an authorization form.              CID at 7-9.
     Consequently, the administrative judge denied the petition for enforcement.
     CID at 9.
¶5        On review, the appellant contends that he was improperly denied the
     opportunity to conduct discovery and that the administrative judge erred in
     concluding that the signed authorization allowed the agency to release the
     contested information.    Compliance Petition for Review (CPFR) File, Tab 1
     at 3-4. The agency has filed a response in opposition to the petition for review.
     CPFR File, Tab 3.

     The administrative judge abused his discretion by issuing the compliance initial
     decision without allowing the appellant to conduct discovery.
¶6        In a January 17, 2017 acknowledgement order, the administrative judge
     noted that though discovery “may not be necessary in a compliance appeal,” if a
     party believed it was necessary, “any initial request for discovery must be filed
                                                                                     4

     within 15 days of the filing of the response to the petition for enforcement. ”
     CF, Tab 3 at 2-3. Consistent with the Board’s regulations, the order specified
     that the record would close 15 calendar days from the date of service of the
     agency’s reply “unless a party inform[ed] [the administrative judge] that
     discovery will take place.” Id. at 3; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(9).
¶7        The agency filed its response to the petition for enforcement on
     February 1, 2017. CF, Tab 5. The appellant, replying to the agency’s response
     on February 11, 2017, indicated that he “intend[ed] to propound discovery upon
     the Agency,” and requested “the ability to issue discovery to the agency.” CF,
     Tab 6 at 11.     On February 24, 2017, the administrative judge issued the
     compliance initial decision denying the appellant’s petition for enforcement,
     despite the fact the appellant had informed the administrative judge that he
     intended to conduct discovery. CID.
¶8        In response to an order issued by the Acting Clerk of the Board, the
     appellant provided a list of interrogatories propounded on the agency on
     February 15, 2017, and a request for the production of documents submitted to
     the agency on February 16, 2017. CPFR File, Tab 7 at 7-19. The appellant’s
     attorney asserts that no response was received to either request. Id. at 5. The
     agency has not provided a response to the order.
¶9        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). However, as the party bearing the burden of proof on the claim, the
     appellant is entitled to obtain evidence to support his claim. See, e.g., Lynch v.
     Department of Defense, 114 M.S.P.R. 219, ¶ 11 (2010).           The appellant has
     provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that he notified the administrative
     judge of his intention to undertake discovery, that he served his discovery
     requests within the requisite 15 days following the agency’s response to the
     petition for enforcement, and that, when the administrative judge issued his
                                                                                      5

      compliance initial decision, the agency had not yet replied to the appellant’s
      requests.   The unanswered discovery requests produced by the appellant seek
      evidence that could be relevant and admissible concerning his allegation that the
      agency materially breached a term of the settlement agreement. CPFR File, Tab 7
      at 7-19.    By issuing the initial decision before discovery was completed, the
      administrative judge deprived the appellant of the opportunity to gather and
      submit potentially relevant evidence obtained during the ongoing discovery
      process. Bernard v. Department of Agriculture, 788 F.3d 1365, 1368-70 (Fed.
      Cir. 2015); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(9). As such, the administrative judge abused
      his discretion and we remand this appeal for further adjudication. See Bernard,
      788 F.3d at 1368-70.
¶10        On remand, the administrative judge shall grant the parties additional time
      to conduct discovery regarding the matters addressed in the outstanding discovery
      requests. Additionally, the administrative judge shall set a new close-of-record
      date and allow the parties to submit potentially relevant evidence obtained
      through the discovery process. After discovery is completed, the administrative
      judge shall issue a new compliance initial decision consistent with this Remand
      Order.

                                          ORDER
¶11        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
      for further adjudication consistent with this Remand Order.

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