Court Opinion

ID: 9907847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 15:00:45.154922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:34.040260
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1845   Document: 26     Page: 1    Filed: 12/07/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   GEORGE GWYNN,
                      Petitioner

                            v.

         DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                       2023-1845
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-0432-16-0865-I-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: December 7, 2023
                 ______________________

    GEORGE GWYNN, Alexandria, VA, pro se.

     BRENDAN DAVID JORDAN, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, CORINNE
 ANNE NIOSI.
                  ______________________

    Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and STOLL, Circuit
                         Judges.
Case: 23-1845    Document: 26     Page: 2    Filed: 12/07/2023

 2                                       GWYNN v. TREASURY

 PER CURIAM.
      Petitioner George Gwynn seeks review of a decision of
 the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). That deci-
 sion sustained the Department of the Treasury’s (“Treas-
 ury’s”) reduction of Mr. Gwynn’s grade from Supervisory
 Individual Taxpayer Advisory Specialist (“ITAS”), IR-0501-
 5, to Senior ITAS, GS-501-11, on the basis of sustained un-
 acceptable performance. On review in this court, Mr.
 Gwynn argues primarily that the reasons and examples
 given in his proposed grade reduction were never substan-
 tiated. We find that the Board’s findings were supported
 by substantial evidence and affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      Mr. Gwynn was a Supervisory ITAS from about 2006
 until his demotion in 2016, and his responsibilities in-
 cluded running the daily operations of Taxpayer Assistance
 Centers in Fredericksburg and Bailey’s Crossroads, Vir-
 ginia. On May 20, 2014, Mr. Gwynn’s supervisor sent him
 a counseling letter informing him that his management
 ability was lacking and recommending either a change in
 his management practices or a return to a Senior ITAS
 role. Over the next year, Mr. Gwynn’s supervisor sent
 seven additional counseling letters and continued to criti-
 cize his performance informally. In April 2015, Mr.
 Gwynn’s supervisor issued a poor midyear progress review
 for the review period beginning October 1, 2014. Then, on
 April 30, 2015, Mr. Gwynn’s supervisor sent him a letter
 stating that he was required to participate in a perfor-
 mance improvement plan (“PIP”). The letter set forth three
 critical performance expectations of his position, explained
 that his performance was unacceptable, and provided spe-
 cific examples. Mr. Gwynn was given 60 days to demon-
 strate performance at a minimally successful level. The
 letter described several necessary performance improve-
 ments, listed nine discrete “action items” to complete dur-
 ing the period, and warned Mr. Gwynn that failure to meet
Case: 23-1845    Document: 26      Page: 3    Filed: 12/07/2023

 GWYNN v. TREASURY                                          3

 all of the performance standards could result in reduction
 in grade or reassignment to another position. During this
 60-day PIP period, Mr. Gwynn was assigned a manager
 coach.
     The PIP period was interrupted in June 2015, when
 Mr. Gwynn was hospitalized and underwent emergency
 surgery. Mr. Gwynn remained on medical leave from June
 4, 2015, to November 2, 2015, when he returned to work
 and gave his supervisor a letter from his doctor stating that
 Mr. Gwynn was cleared for duty but would need frequent
 bathroom breaks, standing breaks, and an opportunity to
 telecommute (especially after clinic appointments). On No-
 vember 10, 2015, Mr. Gwynn’s supervisor told him he could
 take as many bathroom and standing breaks as needed.
 However, because Mr. Gwynn was on a PIP, his supervisor
 determined that he was not eligible to telework under In-
 ternal Revenue Service policy. Thus, she instead told Mr.
 Gwynn to take leave to attend appointments at the clinic
 whenever he needed. Following a four-week transition pe-
 riod, Mr. Gwynn resumed his full regular duties on Novem-
 ber 30, 2015.
      Because of Mr. Gwynn’s medical leave, his supervisor
 extended his PIP period to December 31, 2015, and ex-
 tended the deadlines for specific action items by seven
 months (from May to December). According to Mr. Gwynn,
 during his PIP period the Bailey’s Crossroads office was
 understaffed. Between December 11 and 17, 2015, also
 during Mr. Gwynn’s PIP period, the Bailey’s Crossroads of-
 fice moved to Vienna, Virginia.
     Following the PIP period, Mr. Gwynn’s supervisor rec-
 ommended removing him from his management position.
 The supervisor determined that Mr. Gwynn had failed to
 show adequate performance in each of the three critical
 performance expectations listed in his PIP notice (leader-
 ship and human capital management, customer service
 and collaboration, and program management). On March
Case: 23-1845     Document: 26     Page: 4    Filed: 12/07/2023

 4                                         GWYNN v. TREASURY

 25, 2016, Mr. Gwynn’s second-line supervisor proposed a
 reduction in grade to GS-11, Senior ITAS. The second-line
 supervisor gave three reasons for the demotion, which were
 Mr. Gwynn’s inadequate performance as to the three criti-
 cal performance expectations, and supported each reason
 with multiple specifications. On August 19, 2016, Mr.
 Gwynn’s third-line supervisor issued a decision sustaining
 all of the charges and specifications and effecting the pro-
 posed reduction in grade.
      Mr. Gwynn appealed his demotion to the Board, con-
 tending that the demotion was not supported by the evi-
 dence. The administrative judge (“AJ”) found—based on a
 declaration from Mr. Gwynn’s supervisor, Mr. Gwynn’s ad-
 missions that he failed some requirements of his PIP, a dec-
 laration from the deciding official, and other documents—
 that Mr. Gwynn was properly demoted for poor perfor-
 mance under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43. Mr. Gwynn petitioned
 the full Board for review. The Board denied review, af-
 firmed the demotion, and modified the AJ’s findings as to
 certain examples and specifications. Mr. Gwynn timely pe-
 titioned this court for review. We have jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 1
                         DISCUSSION
     Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), we review actions, findings,
 or conclusions of an agency for whether they are:
         (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
         or otherwise not in accordance with law;

     1    Mr. Gwynn’s petition to the Board presented argu-
 ments based on disparate treatment due to medical disa-
 bility. Before this court, Mr. Gwynn has certified that he
 is not raising a discrimination claim.
Case: 23-1845    Document: 26      Page: 5    Filed: 12/07/2023

 GWYNN v. TREASURY                                          5

         (2) obtained without procedures required by
         law, rule, or regulation having been followed;
         or
         (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.
 To demote an employee for unacceptable performance un-
 der 5 U.S.C. § 4303, the agency must have (1) established
 an approved performance appraisal system, (2) communi-
 cated the performance standards and critical elements of
 an employee’s position to him, (3) warned him of inadequa-
 cies in his performance of critical elements, and (4) offered
 him counseling and an opportunity for improvement. San-
 tos v. Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 990 F.3d 1355,
 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Lovshin v. Dep’t of Navy,
 767 F.2d 826, 834 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). If these so-called
 “Lovshin” requirements are met, the agency may reduce an
 employee’s grade based on an unacceptable rating with re-
 spect to even a single critical element of the employee’s po-
 sition. Harris v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 972 F.3d 1307, 1316
 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
      With respect to the first and second Lovshin require-
 ments, Mr. Gwynn does not dispute that Treasury had an
 approved performance appraisal system and that Treasury
 informed Mr. Gwynn of the performance standards and
 critical elements of his position.
     With respect to the third Lovshin requirement, Mr.
 Gwynn does not appear to dispute that he was warned of
 inadequacies in his performance of critical elements, which
 the Board found supported by several communications in-
 cluding the April 2015 midyear review and the April 30,
 2015, PIP notice letter. We agree that substantial evidence
 supports the Board’s finding that Mr. Gwynn received
 warning that his performance was inadequate.
     With respect to the fourth Lovshin requirement, Mr.
 Gwynn does not appear to dispute the Board’s finding that
 he was offered coaching, counseling, and more than 60 days
Case: 23-1845    Document: 26      Page: 6    Filed: 12/07/2023

 6                                        GWYNN v. TREASURY

 to achieve the tasks set forth in his PIP. However, Mr.
 Gwynn argues that Treasury did not offer him a reasonable
 opportunity for improvement because his PIP period was
 interrupted by an office move and his illness. The Board
 determined that, while the office move and illness were ex-
 tenuating circumstances, they did not entirely excuse the
 performance lapses identified by Treasury, several of
 which occurred before Mr. Gwynn left for medical leave.
 The Board concluded that Treasury reasonably provided
 Mr. Gwynn an opportunity to improve his performance, in-
 cluding by providing management coaches, by extending
 the deadline for certain tasks by seven months, and by ex-
 tending the PIP period for the full month after Mr. Gwynn
 resumed his regular duties. We agree that substantial ev-
 idence supports these findings.
      On review, Mr. Gwynn primarily contends that the
 Board erred in determining that his performance was un-
 acceptable and justified imposing a PIP. He argues that
 his supervisor gave “misleading and inaccurate state-
 ments.” Pet. Br. at 29. Because “credibility determinations
 of an administrative judge are virtually unreviewable on
 appeal,” we will not disturb the Board’s decision to credit
 evidence provided by Mr. Gwynn’s supervisor. Bieber v.
 Dep’t of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
 Substantial evidence supports Treasury’s determination
 that Mr. Gwynn’s performance before April 2015 was inad-
 equate with respect to at least one critical element and jus-
 tified imposing a PIP. In particular, as to the leadership
 and human capital management element, substantial evi-
 dence supports that Mr. Gwynn failed to complete reviews
 for all employees in his group during October and Decem-
 ber 2014, that Mr. Gwynn worked away from the larger
 Bailey’s Crossroads site without informing his supervisor
 (despite being instructed to communicate his wherea-
 bouts), that Mr. Gwynn failed to sign a disciplinary recom-
 mendation for a subordinate who engaged in travel card
 abuse, and that Mr. Gwynn failed to communicate
Case: 23-1845    Document: 26      Page: 7   Filed: 12/07/2023

 GWYNN v. TREASURY                                         7

 promptly with his supervisor after an incident involving
 two of his employees.
      We conclude that substantial evidence also supports
 the Board’s finding that Mr. Gwynn’s performance was in-
 adequate with respect to at least one critical element dur-
 ing the PIP period itself. Substantial evidence supports
 that Mr. Gwynn failed to prepare a report identifying areas
 for improvement in his office practices by the deadline set
 by his supervisor (and that the report he eventually sub-
 mitted did not identify areas for improvement), failed to
 have his senior ITAS complete quality reviews during the
 PIP period, failed to complete assigned progression reviews
 on each employee during the PIP period, and failed to con-
 duct timely annual appraisals during the PIP period. Mr.
 Gwynn’s informal brief indeed does not dispute the finding
 that he did not timely complete several of these require-
 ments.
                       AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.