Court Opinion

ID: 9388185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 21:00:17.18948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:18.682826
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     PATRICIA DIFFLEY,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        NY-1221-17-0237-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                          DATE: April 19, 2023
       SECURITY,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Alan E. Wolin, Esquire, Jericho, New York, for the appellant.

           Cynthia J. Pree, Esquire, New York, New York, 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
     dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of jurisdiction . On
     petition for review, the appellant argues that she did establish Board jurisdiction
     over her IRA appeal under 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and 2302(b)(9). Generally, we

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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. Except as
     expressly MODIFIED to clarify why the appellant failed to establish Board
     jurisdiction based on 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9), we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         Between November 24, 2014, and August 8, 2016, the appellant disclosed to
     agency management and to her U.S. Senator that her supervisor had obtained
     personal information from the appellant’s therapist and disclos ed it to others,
     violating her privacy and causing her embarrassment. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tabs 1, 5. After two investigations, on October 24, 2016, the agency proposed to
     suspend the appellant for 3 days, based on charges of disruptive behavior an d
     inappropriate conduct. IAF, Tab 10 at 180. On February 14, 2107, she filed a
     complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging that the agency had
     proposed her suspension and taken other alleged personnel actions because of her
     disclosures. IAF, Tab 1 at 21-40. After OSC advised the appellant that it had
     closed its file, id. at 54, she filed an IRA appeal, id. at 1-14, and requested a
     hearing, id. at 2.
¶3         In her initial decision based on the written record, the administrative judge
     dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 12, Initial Decision (ID)
     at 1, 17-18. She found that, while the appellant exhausted her remedy before
                                                                                       3

     OSC, ID at 8-9, she failed to nonfrivolously allege that her disclosures were
     protected. ID at 10-15. Despite that finding, the administrative judge further
     found that, even if the appellant’s disclosures were protected, she failed to
     nonfrivolously allege that they were a contributing factor in the agency’s decision
     to propose her suspension. ID at 15-17.
¶4        On review, the appellant disputes the administrative judge’s findings that
     she failed to nonfrivolously allege that her disclosures were protected under
     5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 7-14, and that her
     disclosures were not a contributing factor to her proposed suspension or to other
     alleged personnel actions, id. at 14-18.   We have reviewed the administrative
     judge’s finding that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege that her
     disclosures were protected because her allegations regarding her supervisor do
     not satisfy the reasonable belief requirement; that is, because a disinterested
     observer with knowledge of the essential facts known to and readily ascertainable
     by her could not reasonably conclude that the agency’s actions evidenced a
     violation of law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, an abuse of authority,
     or any of the other conditions set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). Lachance v.
     White, 174 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Regarding these issues, the record
     reflects that the administrative judge considered the evidence as a whole, drew
     appropriate inferences, and made reasoned conclusions. ID at 9-15; see, e.g, Clay
     v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016) (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) ; Crosby v.
     U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 105-06 (1997) (same). We therefore agree
     with the administrative judge that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege
                                                                                          4

     that she made a protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and that, on that
     basis, her appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 2
¶5         However, the appellant raised another possible basis for Board jurisdiction.
     The record reflects that, on September 25, 2013, she initiated a complaint with
     the agency’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), in which she raised the same
     allegations she raised in her other alleged disclosures regarding her supervisor.
     IAF, Tab 10 at 45-106.        The appellant referenced this filing in her OSC
     complaint, IAF, Tab 1 at 34, and in her Board appeal, id. 7, alleging Board
     jurisdiction based not only on 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), but also (b)(9). IAF, Tab 1
     at 9; Tab 5 at 4. Although the administrative judge did, both in her jurisdictional
     order and initial decision, set out the basis for Board jurisdiction over an IRA
     appeal based on 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9), IAF, Tab 3 at 3; ID at 7, she did not
     analyze the appellant’s appeal under that statutory provision. We do so now.
¶6         Under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A), it is protected activity to exercise “any
     appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation—
     (i) with regard to remedying a violation of [5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)]; or (ii) other
     than with regard to remedying a violation of [5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)].” However,
     an employee or applicant for employment may seek corrective action from the
     Board only for protected activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), the exercise
     of “any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or
     regulation,” seeking to remedy a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). 5 U.S.C.
     § 1221(a); Mudd v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 120 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶ 7
     (2013).
¶7         As explained above, the substance of the appellant’s complaints to OIA did
     not concern remedying an alleged violation of section 2302(b)(8). Rather, her
     complaints to OIA concerned an alleged breach of confidentiality by her

     2
      Based on this finding, we need not address the appellant’s claims that her disclosures
     were a contributing factor to her proposed suspension, or that the agency took other
     actions against her that were “personnel actions” under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A).
                                                                                        5

     supervisor and her therapist, designed, in the appellant’s view, to discredit her
     reputation. IAF, Tab 10 at 45-106. Therefore, the appellant’s complaint to OIA
     regarding these matters is not within the purview of section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), and
     the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider such allegations in the context of thi s IRA
     appeal. Mudd, 120 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶ 7; see 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a).
¶8         Further, we note that, prior to December 12, 2017, the whistleblower
     protection statutory scheme included as protected activity “cooperating with or
     disclosing information to the Inspector General of an agency, or the Special
     Counsel, in accordance with applicable provisions of law.”                5 U.S.C.
     § 2302(b)(9)(C). Section 1097(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
     of 2018 (NDAA), Pub. L. No. 115-91, 131 Stat. 1283, 1618 (2017), amended
     section 2302(b)(9)(C) to provide that, in addition to the Inspector General of an
     agency or the Special Counsel, a disclosure to “any other component responsible
     for internal investigation” is also protected.
¶9         Here, as noted above, the appellant made purported disclosu res to OIA. ID
     at 2-4; IAF, Tab 5 at 20-21, 28-33. All of the events relevant to this appeal
     occurred prior to the enactment of the NDAA. Accordingly, we need not decide
     whether the appellant’s disclosures fall within the coverage of the amended
     section 2302(b)(9)(C) because the Board has found that the statutory provision is
     not retroactive.   Edwards v. Department of Labor, 2022 MSPB 9, ¶¶ 30-33.
     Therefore it does not apply to this appeal. As such, we find that the appellant
     failed to nonfrivolously allege that she engaged in protected activity protected by
     5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(9)(A) or 2302(b)(9)(C), and that, on these bases as well, her
     appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 3

     3
      We have reviewed the relevant legislation enacted during the pendency of this appeal
     and have concluded that it does not affect the outcome of the appeal.
                                                                                      6

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      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 an d
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. Failu re 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).

4
  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.
                                                                                    7

      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 fo llowing
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. ____ , 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
                                                                                  8

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:
                            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
                                                                                      9

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. 5 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

5
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent j urisdiction 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.
                                                                           10

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.