Court Opinion

ID: 9964293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 17:00:47.300583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:17.398934
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JOSEPH ARMSTRONG,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DC-0752-22-0621-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,                         DATE: April 26, 2024
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Joseph Armstrong , Rochester, New York, pro se.

           Beth Leech , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant, a WG-10 Electrician, has filed a petition for review of the
     initial decision that sustained his chapter 75 removal based on charges of failure
     to follow supervisory instructions and inappropriate statements. On review, the
     appellant maintains, among other things, that he was justified in failing to follow

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     supervisory instructions because he was being harassed. 2           Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 4 at 5; Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 67, 75, 86-87.
¶2         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. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
     find that the supervisor’s instructions were proper and were not outweighed by
     any legitimate, countervailing interest in opposing harassment, we AFFIRM the
     initial decision.

     The appellant’s arguments that he was justified in failing to follow supervisory
     instructions are not persuasive.
¶3         The    agency’s    failure   to   follow   instructions    charge   included    two
     specifications. IAF, Tab 25, Initial Decision (ID) at 7-11; IAF, Tab 5 at 75. The
     first specification concerned the appellant’s failure to follow his supervisor’s
     instructions to stop recording him with his personal cell phone while the two of
     2
       The appellant appears to suggest, for the first time in his petition for review, that the
     agency also retaliated against him for his report to the Department of Homeland
     Security that his supervisor broke into his workspace. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. To the
     extent that the appellant raises a claim of whistleblower reprisal, or reprisal based on
     otherwise protected, non-EEO activity, he has not shown that his argument is based on
     new and material evidence not previously available despite his due diligence. Thus, we
     decline to consider this new argument on review. See Pridgen v. Office of Management
     and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 34 n.10.
                                                                                       3

     them were performing a routine repair job.       IAF, Tab 5 at 71-72, 75.      The
     appellant argued that he continued recording his supervisor despite the
     instructions because he believed his supervisor was harassing him. Id. at 67. The
     second specification concerned misconduct the following day when the appellant
     failed to follow his supervisor’s instructions to accompany him to repair a light.
     Id. at 75. The appellant argued that it had been “imperative” that he speak with
     his second-level supervisor instead of accompanying his supervisor to the repair
     job because his supervisor was speaking to him in a derogatory way.             Id.
     at 75, 86-87; IAF, Tab 23-1, Hearing Recording (HR) (testimony of the
     appellant). On review, the appellant maintains that he was justified in failing to
     follow his supervisor’s instructions. PFR File, Tab 4 at 5.
¶4        To prove a charge of failure to follow instructions, an agency must establish
     that: (1) the employee was given proper instructions, and (2) the employee failed
     to follow the instructions. Archerda v. Department of Defense, 121 M.S.P.R. 314,
     ¶ 16 (2014) (citing Hamilton v. U.S. Postal Service, 71 M.S.P.R. 547, 556
     (1996)). The administrative judge, citing Smith v. Department of Transportation,
     106 M.S.P.R. 59, ¶ 17 (2007), noted that an employee’s conduct is not immune
     from discipline merely because it touches upon concerns of discrimination. ID
     at 9. Concerning the first specification, he found that the appellant’s harassment
     concerns did not excuse or justify his decisions to ignore and refuse to follow his
     supervisor’s instructions to stop recording the interaction. Id. Concerning the
     second specification, he stated that, even if the appellant believed he was being
     spoken to in a derogatory way, this did not excuse his failure to follow his
     supervisor’s instructions. ID at 11.
¶5        We modify the initial decision to provide clarification of this issue. The
     Board has recognized that when an employee’s conduct underlying discipline
     involves opposition to discrimination, the Board “must balance the purpose of the
     statutory provisions affording protection from discrimination against Congress’s
     equally manifest desire not to tie the hands of employers in the objective control
                                                                                            4

     of personnel.”    Bonanova v. Department of Education, 49 M.S.P.R. 294, 300
     (1991); see generally 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (protecting an employee’s right to
     oppose discrimination).    Thus, we must consider whether the appellant had a
     legitimate, countervailing interest in opposing harassment that outweighed the
     supervisor’s otherwise proper instructions to complete the job assignments.
¶6         We answer this question in the negative based on the administrative judge’s
     thorough and well-reasoned credibility findings. The administrative judge found
     credible the accounts of the appellant’s supervisor as well as the appellant’s
     coworker,   who    witnessed   the    interaction   related   to   the   agency’s   first
     specification. ID at 7; IAF, Tab 11 at 79, 81. The appellant’s coworker explicitly
     stated that the supervisor “did not threaten or pick on [the appellant] at all.” IAF,
     Tab 5 at 81. The administrative judge also credited the supervisor’s account over
     the appellant’s account as to the second specification. ID at 12-16. He accurately
     noted, among other things, that the appellant was unable to identify at the hearing
     any specific “derogatory” things that his supervisor had said that he allegedly
     sought to oppose.     ID at 15; HR (testimony of the appellant).           We find no
     sufficiently sound reason for disturbing these credibility findings, which are
     entitled to deference. See Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1301
     (Fed. Cir. 2002). Thus, because the appellant’s allegations of harassment were
     not credible, we conclude that the agency’s interest in having the appellant
     complete the assigned job duties outweighed the appellant’s desire to oppose what
     he allegedly perceived as harassment. 3 Accordingly, we find that the supervisory
     instructions were proper and affirm the administrative judge’s finding sustaining
     both specifications of this charge.
¶7         Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision as modified.

     3
       In light of this finding, we need not determine in what circumstances an employee’s
     right to oppose harassment would outweigh an agency’s instruction to complete a job
     assignment.
                                                                                         5

                           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 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).
      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:

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.
                                                                                    6

                             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
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
                                                                                  7

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
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
                                                                                      8

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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

5
   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.
                                                                        9

      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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.