Court Opinion

ID: 9391377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 06:00:11.552554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.594443
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ERIKA GOODMAN,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          CH-0752-21-0327-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,                            DATE: May 1, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Erika Goodman, Hazel Crest, Illinois, pro se.

           Carolyn Cheung, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed her removal based on the charges of misuse of a Government travel card

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
       Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
     completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                          2

     and lack of candor. 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 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 and AFFIRM the initial decision,
     which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
¶2         On petition for review, the appellant submits new evidence, namely a final
     agency decision (FAD) in her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
     dated June 7, 2021.     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 10-43.        Under
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for
     the first time with a petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable
     before the close of the record below despite the party’s due diligence. Avansino
     v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980); see Clay v. Department of the
     Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016) (stating that the Board generally will not
     consider a new argument raised for the first time on review absent a showing that
     it is based on new and material evidence). The appellant offers no explanation
     why she did not submit the FAD, which the agency issued 3 months prior to the
     hearing, into the record during the pendency of her appeal.         PFR File, Tab 1
     at 4-8.   Even if we were to consider this document, neither the FAD nor the
     appellant’s arguments on review provide a basis for disturbing the administrative
     judge’s finding that she had not met her burden to show that her EEO activity was
                                                                                            3

     a motivating factor in the removal action. 3 Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 27,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 20-22.
¶3         The administrative judge noted that it was undisputed that the appellant had
     filed an EEO complaint and that there was “some evidence in the record tending
     to show that the proposing and deciding officials may have had general
     knowledge” that the appellant had filed a complaint. ID at 21. Nonetheless, she
     found credible the testimony of both officials that the EEO activity had no impact
     on the removal action and that the timing of the removal action alone was
     insufficient to infer a retaliatory motive. ID at 22. Moreover, the administrative
     judge noted that the routine administrative audit and management’s referral of the
     matter to the OIG occurred before the appellant filed her informal EEO com plaint
     on November 1, 2019. Id.; IAF, Tab 20 at 18; PFR File, Tab 1 at 10. The agency
     does not challenge the administrative judge’s finding that the proposing official
     was aware of the EEO complaint.           ID at 21; PFR File, Tab 5 at 14.          The
     appellant’s arguments on review essentially amount to a disagreement about when
     exactly the proposing official found out about her EEO complaint. PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 4-5. We agree with the administrative judge that the appellant failed to
     establish that her November 1, 2019 EEO complaint was a motivating factor in
     her removal, which stemmed from a routine audit that occurred several months
     prior to the complaint.
¶4         The appellant’s remaining arguments on review are unavailing. She does
     not specifically challenge the administrative judge’s findings that the agency
     proved the charges of misuse of a Government travel card and lack of candor, the
     nexus between the appellant’s misconduct and the efficiency of the service, and

     3
       Because we discern no error with the administrative judge’s motivat ing factor analysis
     or conclusion regarding the appellant’s claim of retaliation for EEO activity, we do not
     reach the question of whether her protected EEO activity was a “but -for” cause of the
     removal action. See Pridgen v. Office of Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31,
     ¶¶ 20-22, 29-33.
                                                                                         4

     the reasonableness of the penalty of removal, and we discern no basis for
     disturbing these findings. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-8; ID at 5-19; see Crosby v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 105-06 (1997) (finding no reason to disturb the
     administrative judge’s findings when she considered the evidence as a whole,
     drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned conclusions on issues of
     credibility);   Broughton   v.   Department   of   Health   and    Human    Services,
     33 M.S.P.R. 357, 359 (1987).          The appellant’s arguments regarding her
     affirmative defenses are essentially mere disagreement with the administrative
     judge’s credibility determinations, and her conclusory assertions that various
     agency    witnesses   “deliberately   and   intentionally   lied   under   oath”   are
     unpersuasive. ID at 20-26; PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-7.
¶5         The administrative judge properly found that the appellant failed to prove
     any of her claims that the agency violated her right to due process. ID at 22 -24.
     The appellant has provided no support for her assertion that she was entitled to all
     evidence in the agency’s possession before the completion of the OIG
     investigation. ID at 23. She seemingly conflates the requirement under 5 U.S.C.
     § 7513(b)(1) that an employee against whom an adverse action is proposed is
     entitled to at least 30 days advanced written notice of the specific reasons for the
     action, with a requirement that the agency had to provide her such notice and the
     evidence from the audit prior to referring the matter to the OIG. PFR File, Tab 1
     at 6-7; IAF, Tab 18 at 4; cf. Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ,
     179 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that procedural due process
     guarantees are not met if the employee has notice of only certain charges or
     portions of the evidence, or if the deciding official considers new and material
     information).
¶6         The appellant argues that the OIG investigator withheld the second half of
     the transcript of her interview to benefit the agency, and she asserts that his
     testimony that the contents of this portion of the interview were unrelated to the
     charged misconduct in the appellant’s removal was false. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6.
                                                                                            5

     The appellant does not allege and there is nothing in the record suggesting that
     the deciding official received a complete copy of the interview transcript while
     the appellant received only the first half. Therefore, the appellant does not raise a
     due process claim that the deciding official received ex parte information to
     which she was not entitled. See Stone, 179 F.3d at 1376. To the extent that the
     appellant alleges that she tried to obtain the complete transcript through the
     discovery process and the agency failed to provide the documents, she did not file
     a motion to compel below and is precluded from raising this discovery issue for
     the first time on review.       See Szejner v. Office of Personnel Management,
     99 M.S.P.R. 275, ¶ 5 (2005), aff’d, 167 F. App’x 217 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Finally,
     regarding her claim that the agency improperly informed the deciding official that
     she had been on weather and safety leave for an extended period, the appellant
     offers no support aside from her conclusory argument that it was “not a
     coincidence” that the deciding official spoke to a subordinate employee in her
     office on April 21, 2021, and then sustained the proposed removal on April 26,
     2021. 4 PFR File, Tab 1 at 7.
¶7         Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
           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

     4
       The appellant described this due process claim as an affirmative defense of laches in
     her response to the affirmative defenses order. IAF, Tab 18 at 5. The administrative
     judge properly explained that this was part of the appellant’s due process claim i n both
     the summary of prehearing conference and the initial decision. ID at 23 -24.
     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 noti ce, the
     Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                        6

Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described bel ow 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.

      (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 partic ular
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
                                                                                     7

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
receive this decision.     5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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,
                                                                                   8

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

      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

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
                                                                                      9

review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).
      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.

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.
                                                                       10

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