Court Opinion

ID: 9392080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 07:00:13.588711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.799891
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

STEPHANIE THOMAS,                               DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DC-0752-16-0482-X-1
                                                DC-0752-16-0013-X-1
             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
            Agency.
                                                DATE: May 3, 2023

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Edward H. Passman, Esquire, and Erik D. Snyder, Esquire, Washington,
        D.C., for the appellant.

      Denise Gillis, Esquire, Evan Richard Gordon, Esquire, and Timothy R.
        Zelek, Esquire, Quantico, Virginia, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                        FINAL ORDER

¶1         In March 23, 2018 compliance initial decisions, the administrative judge
     found the agency in partial noncompliance with the Board’s Septembe r 26, 2017
     final decisions reversing the appellant’s removal and constructive suspension and
     ordering the agency to retroactively restore her with back pay and benefits and to
     grant her request for reasonable accommodation. Thomas v. Department of the
     Navy, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-16-0482-C-1, Compliance File, Tab 10,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID); Thomas v. Department of the Navy, MSPB
     Docket No. DC-0752-16-0013-C-1, Compliance File, Tab 16, Compliance Initial
     Decision (CID). 3    For the reasons discussed below, we find the agency in
     compliance and DISMISS the petitions for enforcement.

         DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2         In the compliance initial decisions, the administrative judge found the
     agency in partial noncompliance with the Board’s final decisions in the
     underlying appeals to the extent that it had failed to provide the appellant with
     dental benefits, the step increases that she would have received had she not been
     removed, and either an adequate workspace or the opportunity to t elework
     full-time.   CID at 4.       Accordingly, the administrative judge granted the
     appellant’s petitions for enforcement and ordered the agency to: (1) enter into a
     telework agreement with the appellant allowing her to telework full -time until a
     workspace approved by the appellant’s physician or medical provider at Marine
     Base Quantico was made available; (2) provide the appellant with a working

     3
       The appellant filed separate appeals of her removal, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-16-
     0482-I-2, and constructive suspension, MSPB Docket No. DC -0752-16-0013-B-2.
     Although the administrative judge did not join the appeals for processing, he issued
     identical initial decisions under both docket numbers and, upon the appellant’s petitions
     for enforcement of the initial decisions, identical compliance initial decisions
     addressing the petitions for enforcement. As the compliance initial decisions in both
     appeal records are the same, citations herein to “CID” refer to both compliance initial
     decisions.
                                                                                      3

     computer, printer, and scanner to be used for telework; and (3) provide the
     appellant with dental benefits and initiate any step increases that the appellant
     would have received had she not been removed or constructively suspended from
     her position. CID at 5-6.
¶3        The administrative judge informed the agency that, if it decided to take the
     ordered actions, it must submit to the Clerk of the Board a narrative statement and
     evidence establishing compliance. CID at 6. The compliance initial decisions
     also informed the parties that they could file a petition for review if they
     disagreed with the compliance initial decisions. CID at 7-8. Neither party filed
     any submission with the Clerk of the Board within the time limit set forth in
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(b)-(c), the
     administrative judge’s findings of noncompliance have become final, and the
     appellant’s petitions for enforcement have been referred to the Board for a final
     decision on the issues of compliance. Thomas v. Department of the Navy, MSPB
     Docket No. DC-0752-16-0482-X-1, Compliance Referral File (0482 CRF), Tab 1;
     Thomas v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-16-0013-X-1,
     Compliance Referral File (0013 CRF), Tab 1.
¶4        On April 30, 2018, the Board issued acknowledgment order s in both appeals
     directing the agency to submit evidence showing that it had complied with all
     actions identified in the compliance initial decisions. 0482 CRF, Tab 1 at 3; 0013
     CRF, Tab 1 at 3.      On May 15, 2018, the agency submitted three separate
     compliance submissions.      0482 CRF, Tabs 2-4.         In relevant part, these
     submissions reflected that the agency had permitted the appellant to telework
     since December 11, 2017, had issued her a laptop and Common Acce ss Card, and
     was working to provide her a printer. 0482 CRF, Tab 2 at 6-7, 33-38, 45-49. The
     agency also provided evidence showing that it retroactively processed the
     appellant’s step increase from a GS 9, step 7, to a GS 9, step 8, on February 28,
     2018, and stated that it had “corrected her pay to reflect this adjustment.”
     0482 CRF, Tab 3 at 7-8, 10-15.        However, the agency maintained that the
                                                                                       4

     appellant had not cooperated with its efforts to restore her dental benefits. 0482
     CRF, Tab 3 at 8-9, 16-30.        The agency stated that, although it had directly
     contacted BENEFEDS 4 to provide the appellant’s reemployment verification and
     necessary authorization for the appellant’s dental benefits, the appellant also
     needed to contact BENEFEDS to be enrolled and/or to inform the agency of any
     specific documents needed to move forward with her enrollment. Id.
¶5        On June 4, 2018, the appellant responded to the agency’s compliance
     submissions, asserting that the agency had not complied with all actions
     identified in the compliance initial decisions. 0482 CRF, Tab 5. 5 Specifically,
     the appellant stated that, although she had been permitted to telework, the agency
     had not provided her with the tools she needed to perform her duties remotely, as
     her government-issued laptop was unable to access the agency’s network; her
     assigned phone number and voicemail had not been set up; and her
     government-issued printer had only been recently procured and was not yet in her
     possession. Id. at 8-9. The appellant also stated that, although she had contacted
     BENEFEDS to have her dental benefits restored, BENEFEDS informed her that it
     was still awaiting reinstatement information from the agency before it could
     process her enrollment.    Id.    The agency did not respond to the appellant’s
     submission.
¶6        By orders dated April 11 and 12, 2022, 6 the Board ordered the agency to
     submit a response, via affidavit and documentary evidence, addressing its

     4
      BENEFEDS is the enrollment and premium processing system for the Federal
     Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program.
     5
       The appellant submitted an identical response in MSPB Docket No. DC -0752-16-
     0013-X-1. 0013 CRF, Tab 2.
     6
       The Board’s April 11 and 12, 2022 orders are identical in text. The April 11, 2022
     order was issued in Thomas v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-16-
     0013-X-1. 0013 CRF, Tab 3. The April 12, 2022 order was issued in Thomas v.
     Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-16-0482-X-1. 0482 CRF, Tab 7.
     For purposes of administrative efficiency, we now JOIN these two cases.
                                                                                      5

     compliance with the administrative judge’s orders to make final determinations as
     to whether it had finally: (1) provided the appellant with the necessary tools to
     perform her work duties in a telework environment, or alternatively, provided the
     appellant with a workspace approved by either her physician or a medical
     provider at Marine Base Quantico; and (2) provided the appellant with dental
     benefits. 0013 CRF, Tab 3; 0482 CRF, Tab 7. The April 11 and 12, 2022 Orders
     also notified the appellant that she may respond to any submission from the
     agency within 21 calendar days of the date of service of the agency’s submission.
     0013 CRF, Tab 3 at 5; 0482 CRF, Tab 7 at 5.          The appellant was cautioned,
     however, that if she did not respond to the agency’s submission regarding
     compliance within those 21 calendar days, the Board “may assume that the
     appellant is satisfied and dismiss the petition[s] for enforcement.” Id.
¶7         The agency responded to the Board’s orders on May 2, 2022. 0482 CRF,
     Tab 8. 7   The agency averred that it had provided the appellant “with all the
     necessary equipment to allow for 100% telework” and that “[she] was on 100%
     telework from 7 Dec 2017 . . . until she resigned from Federal service on 26 Nov
     2019.” Id. at 5, 9. It further averred that, though it had “provided the appellant
     with all the necessary documentation for [her] to ti mely obtain dental benefits,”
     the appellant needed “to contact [BENEFEDS] directly to set up this insurance.”
     Id. at 7-8. Evidence reflecting the agency’s efforts to provide the appellant with
     the necessary telework equipment included copies of the parti es’ email
     communications, id. at 11-15, an equipment custody record, id. at 16-17, and an
     April 25, 2022 memorandum, signed by the Director of the Contracting Office for
     the Marine Corps Installations National Capital Region, id. at 9-10. Evidence
     reflecting the agency’s efforts to provide the appellant with the documentation
     necessary for her to complete her dental insurance enrollment included copies of

     7
      The agency submitted an identical response in MSPB Docket No. DC -0752-16-0013-
     X-1. 0013 CRF, Tab 5.
                                                                                         6

     internal and external email communications, id. at 25-50, and a May 15, 2018
     memorandum for the record, signed by a Human Resource Labor and Employee
     Relations Supervisor, id. at 24. The appellant did not respond to the agency’s
     submission.

                                         ANALYSIS
¶8        When the Board finds a personnel action unwarranted or not sustainable, it
     orders that the appellant be placed, as nearly as possible, in the situation she
     would have been in had the wrongful personnel action not occurred. House v.
     Department of the Army, 98 M.S.P.R. 530, ¶ 9 (2005). The agency bears the
     burden to prove its compliance with a Board order. An agency’s assertions of
     compliance must include a clear explanation of its compliance actions supported
     by documentary evidence. Vaughan v. Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R.
     319, ¶ 5 (2011). The appellant may rebut the agency’s evidence of compliance by
     making “specific, nonconclusory, and supported assertions of continued
     noncompliance.” Brown v. Office of Personnel Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 325,
     ¶ 5 (2010).
¶9        Here, the agency has demonstrated that prior to the appellant’s resignation
     from the Federal service, it entered into a full-time telework agreement with her,
     provided her with the necessary tools to perform her work duties in a telework
     environment, initiated her entitled step increases, and provided her with the
     documentation she needed to present to BENEFEDS 8 to complete her dental
     insurance enrollment.      The appellant has not responded to the agency’s

     8
        According to the website of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
     “[Individuals] must use BENEFEDS to enroll or change enrollment in a FEDVIP plan.
     BENEFEDS is a secure enrollment website sponsored by OPM.”                        See
     https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/dental-vision/enrollment (last visited May 3,
     2023). While the agency provided the appellant with the opportunity to receive dental
     benefits, it was ultimately her responsibility to use BENEFEDS to complete her
     enrollment for these benefits, to include presenting BENEFEDS with copies of any
     necessary documentation provided to her by the agency.
                                                                                            7

      compliance submission, despite being notified of her opportunity to do so and
      being cautioned that the Board may assume she is satisfied and dismiss her
      petitions for enforcement if she did not respond. 0013 CRF, Tab 3 at 5; 0482
      CRF, Tab 7 at 5. Accordingly, we assume that the appellant is satisfied with the
      agency’s compliance.     See Baumgartner v. Department of Housing and Urban
      Development, 111 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 9 (2009).
¶10         In light of the foregoing, we find that the agency is now in compliance and
      dismiss the appellant’s petitions for enforcement. This is the final decision of the
      Merit Systems Protection Board in this compliance proceeding.           Title 5 of the
      Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 9
            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
      Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
      appropriate for your situation and the rights described b elow 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.

      9
        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 notice, the
      Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                          8

      (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 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.

      (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 tha t 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
                                                                                  9

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,
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:
                                                                                     10

                            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. 10   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
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

10
   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 f or judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
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.
                                                                              11

      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.
      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.