Court Opinion

ID: 9895186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 13:00:25.281319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:42.180842
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RENEE COLEMAN,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-0752-17-0103-I-2

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF                               DATE: November 3, 2023
       TRANSPORTATION,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Renee Coleman , Takoma Park, Maryland, pro se.

           Eugenia Jackson , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     sustained the agency’s removal action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 75.             On
     petition for review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge exhibited
     bias and that the agency violated her privacy. The appellant also generally asserts
     that her conduct did not warrant removal. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 5

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     at 1-14, Tab 8 at 1-17. 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         We find the appellant’s allegations of bias to be without merit. The Board
     has consistently held that, in making a claim of bias against an administrative
     judge, the appellant must overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity that
     accompanies all administrative adjudicators.      Washington v. Department of the
     Interior, 81 M.S.P.R. 101, ¶ 7 (1999) (citing In re King, 1 M.S.P.R. 146, 151
     (1979)). This presumption can be overcome only by a substantial showing of
     personal bias. Williams v. U.S. Postal Service, 87 M.S.P.R. 313, ¶ 12 (2000). An
     administrative judge’s conduct during the course of a Board proceeding warrants
     a new adjudication only if the administrative judge’s comments or actions
     indicate a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would render fair judgment
     impossible.   Simpkins v. Office of Personnel Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 411,
     ¶ 5 (2010). The record is devoid of any such bias.
¶3         The appellant also alleges that the agency violated her privacy by relying on
     a statement she made to an equal employment opportunity (EEO) specialist
     professing a desire to kill her supervisor and by referencing a Federal Protective
                                                                                           3

     Service (FPS) report summarizing her conduct; however, both contentions are
     without merit. PFR File, Tab 5 at 4 -5, 11-12. Board proceedings are public in
     nature, and there is nothing inherently improper about the agency’s submission
     of, or reliance on, an FPS report.           See Ortiz v. Department of Justice,
     103 M.S.P.R. 621, ¶ 14 (2006) (explaining that the Board is a public body and the
     public has a right to be informed of the Board’s decisions); see also
     Kirkland-Zuck v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 90 M.S.P.R.
     12, ¶ 6 (2001) (referencing an FPS citation in reasoning that the appellant’s
     removal was appropriate), aff’d, 48 F. App’x 749 (Fed. Cir. 2002). To the extent
     the appellant alleges that her statement to the EEO specialist was privileged, we
     find her contention unavailing.        See Berkner v. Department of Commerce,
     116 M.S.P.R. 277, ¶¶ 13, 15 (2011). Although the Board has noted that EEO
     counseling sessions are a context wherein it may be appropriate to afford
     employees more leeway, Daigle v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 84 M.S.P.R.
     625, ¶ 6 (1999), we see no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s findings in
     light of the serious nature and gravity of the appellant’s statement, which
     registered such concern with the appellant’s EEO counselor that she immediately
     left her meeting with the appellant to report the incident.              See Berkner,
     116 M.S.P.R. 277, ¶ 13.
¶4         On review, the appellant also generally alleges that removal constituted an
     excessive penalty. 2 PFR File, Tab 8 at 16-17. When the agency’s charges are
     sustained, the Board will review an agency-imposed penalty only to determine if
     the agency considered all of the relevant factors and exercised discretion within
     tolerable limits of reasonableness.         Stuhlmacher v. U.S. Postal Service,
     89 M.S.P.R. 272, ¶ 20 (2001). Here, the appellant’s general contention that a

     2
       Presumably to bolster her assertions as to the impropriety of the penalty imposed, the
     appellant provides numerous documents with her petition for review. PFR File, Tab 5
     at 15-211, Tab 8 at 18-114. However, the appellant has not shown that these additional
     documents were unavailable prior to close of the record. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d).
                                                                                      4

lesser penalty would have been more appropriate does not warrant disruption of
the administrative judge’s reasoned findings.        See id.    Thus, the appellant’s
contention in this regard is without merit.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      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 below 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).

3
  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.
                                                                                        5

      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 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. 420 (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
                                                                                  6

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:
                            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
                                                                                      7

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. 4   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

      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

4
   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
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.
                                                                             8

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:                        ______________________________
                                      Jennifer Everling
                                      Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.