Court Opinion

ID: 9373363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:27.606745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.184101
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MICHAEL W. ERVIN,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         SF-0752-17-0722-X-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: September 28, 2022
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Mary DiGioia, Bellflower, California, for the appellant.

           Catherine V. Meek, Esquire, Long Beach, California, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

¶1         On September 25, 2017, the appellant appealed his removal from the
     position of Manager, Customer Service, to the Board.          Ervin v. United States
     Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-17-0722-I-1, Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 1. On December 3, 2018, the administrative judge issued an 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 mitigating the appellant’s removal to a demotion to the position of
     Supervisor, Customer Service. IAF, Tab 30, Initial Decision (ID) at 14.        The
     administrative judge ordered the agency to cancel the appellant’s removal and
     substitute in its place a demotion to the position of Supervisor, Customer Service;
     and to pay the appellant the appropriate amount of back pay, with interest, as well
     as to adjust the appellant’s benefits with appropriate credits and deductions. ID
     at 14-15.   That initial decision became the final decision of the Board on
     January 7, 2019, after neither party petitioned the full Board for review.      ID
     at 16-17.
¶2         On March 18, 2019, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement of the
     Board’s order, alleging that the agency had not yet returned him to work. Ervin
     v. United States Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-17-0722-C-1,
     Compliance File (CF), Tab 1 at 3. On May 10, 2019, the administrative judge
     issued a compliance initial decision granting the petition for enforcement because
     the agency failed to demonstrate that it cancelled the appellant’s remova l; placed
     him in a Supervisor position; or paid him back pay, interest, and benefits. CF,
     Tab 5, Compliance Initial Decision at 4. The administrative judge again ordered
     the agency to: (1) cancel the removal and substitute in its place a demotion to the
     position of Supervisor, Customer Service; (2) pay the appellant the correct
     amount of back pay, interest, and benefits; and (3) inform the Board in writing of
     all actions taken to comply with the Board’s order and the date on which it
     believes it has fully complied.
¶3         On July 9, 2019, the agency filed a statement of compliance pursuant to
     5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.183(a) and 1201.183(a)(6)(ii). Ervin v. United States Postal
     Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-17-0722-X-1, Compliance Referral File
     (CRF), Tab 3. The agency stated in its response that it believed there was no need
     to cancel the appellant’s removal because the removal was never actually
     effectuated due to the appellant’s resignation. CRF, Tab 3 at 4. The agency
     further stated that it reactivated the appellant’s employment and placed him into a
                                                                                       3

     position as Supervisor, Customer Service, at the Pico Rivera Post Office, w here
     he reported for the first time on June 24, 2019. Id. The agency finally stated
     that, for the agency to be able to complete the back pay requirement, the appellant
     needed to complete the agency’s back pay forms addressing outside employment
     and other sources of income. Id. at 5.
¶4        On July 22, 2019, the appellant responded to the agency’s proof of
     compliance. CRF, Tab 4. The appellant asserted that his new assignment was
     farther from his home than his original position, despite similar vacant positions
     existing in his original facility. Id. at 11. The appellant further stated that he
     submitted the requisite back pay forms to the agency on July 1, 2019. Id.
¶5        On June 19, 2020, the Clerk of the Board issued an order stating that further
     evidence from the agency was required before the Board could make a
     determination on compliance. CRF, Tab 5 at 2-3. The Clerk of the Board noted
     that, as of the date of the order, the agency had not yet submitted any evidence
     demonstrating that all back pay funds have been paid to the appellant, provided
     any explanation as to how it chose the appellant’s new position, or stated whether
     it cancelled the Standard Form (SF) 50 reflecting the appellant’s retirement. Id.
     The Clerk of the Board directed the agency to inform the Board whether all back
     pay funds had been paid to the appellant, and if the agency claimed that the back
     pay funds had been paid, the agency’s submission was required to include full
     details of the back pay calculations and a narrative summary of the payments. Id.
     The Clerk of the Board further directed the agency to state whether it had
     cancelled the petitioner’s retirement SF-50, and also inform the Board regarding
     how it chose the appellant’s new position, including the location, and explain why
     the appellant was not returned to his original work location. Id.
¶6        On April 23, 2021, the Clerk of the Board issued another order due to the
     agency’s failure to respond to the June 19, 2020 Order.        CRF, Tab 6.     The
     April 23 Order repeated the June 19, 2020 directive to the agency, and also
     warned the agency that failure to submit the required information may lead to the
                                                                                           4

     issuance of sanctions against the responsible agency offi cial pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
     § 1204(e)(2)(A) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c). Id. at 2.
¶7         Because the agency has still not filed any response to the June 19, 2020 and
     April 23, 2021 Orders, the Board hereby ORDERS the agency to submit evidence
     that it has fully complied with the Board’s December 3, 2018 Order.                This
     evidence must include, but is not limited to, the information requested in the
     June 19, 2020 and April 23, 2021 Orders. Additionally, the Board also ORDERS
     Cynthia Garcia, the agency management official identified as responsible for
     ensuring the agency’s compliance, to SHOW CAUSE why the Board should not
     impose sanctions for the agency’s noncompliance in this case, including an order
     that Ms. Garcia not receive salary for the period during which the agency remains
     in noncompliance. 2    The agency and Ms. Garcia shall submit their responses
     within 30 days of the date of this Order.
¶8         Within 21 days of the agency’s submissions, the appellant shall file a
     response. Failure to do so may cause the Board to assume he is satisfied and
     dismiss the petition for enforcement.

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

     2
       Because the agency did not provide proper contact information for Ms. Garcia, the
     agency is hereby ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order upon Ms. Garcia. In the
     event that Ms. Garcia is no longer employed by the agency, the agency is hereby
     ORDERED to identify the agency official that has replaced Ms. Garcia as ensuring
     agency compliance in this matter, and serve a copy of this Order on that replacement
     official. Further, the identified replacement must fulfill all obligations of Ms. Garcia
     under this Order.