Court Opinion

ID: 9397320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 06:00:10.142937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.593822
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SPECIAL COUNSEL                                 DOCKET NUMBER
EX REL. STEVEN MCDANIEL,                        CB-1208-23-0006-U-2
              Petitioner,

             v.
                                                DATE: May 24, 2023
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

          THIS STAY ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Dustin Seth Frankel, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.

      Katherine W. Krems, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the relator.

      Glen E. Woodworth, Esquire, Anchorage, Alaska, for the agency.

      Theodore M. Miller, Seattle, Washington, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                       ORDER ON STAY EXTENSION REQUEST

¶1         Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(B), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)
     requests a 60-day extension of the previously granted stay of the probationary
     termination of Mr. McDaniel by the Department of Veterans Affairs (agency)
     while OSC completes its investigation and legal review of the matter and
     determines whether to seek corrective action. For the reasons discussed below,
     OSC’s request is GRANTED.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         On April 6, 2023, OSC filed a 45-day initial stay request of the
     probationary termination of Mr. McDaniel based on alleged misconduct. Special
     Counsel ex rel. Steven McDaniel v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB
     Docket No. CB-1208-23-0006-U-1, Stay Request File, Tab 1. In its initial stay
     request, OSC argued that it had reasonable grounds to believe that the agency’s
     action was in retaliation for Mr. McDaniel’s protected ac tivity under 5 U.S.C.
     § 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9)(C). Id. On April 10, 2023, OSC’s initial stay request
     was granted through and including May 24, 2023. Special Counsel ex rel. Steven
     McDaniel v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. CB-1208-23-
     0006-U-1, Order on Stay Request, ¶¶ 1, 10 (Apr. 10, 2023).
¶3         On May 9, 2023, OSC filed a timely request to extend the stay for an
     additional 60 days. Special Counsel ex rel. Steven McDaniel v. Department of
     Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. CB-1208-23-0006-U-2, Stay Request File
     (U-2 SRF), Tab 1.     The agency filed a response to OSC’s extension request,
     explaining, among other things, that it does not oppose OSC’s request but
     reserves the right to comment and oppose future requests. 2        U-2 SRF, Tab 2
     at 4-5.

     2
       The agency’s response was filed 1 day after the May 16, 2023 deadline . However,
     because we are granting OSC’s request and the agency is not objecting to an extension,
     we do not reach the timeliness issue.
                                                                                      3

                                        ANALYSIS
¶4         A stay granted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1) is issued to maintain the
     status quo ante while OSC and the agency involved resolve the disputed matter.
     Special Counsel v. Department of Transportation, 74 M.S.P.R. 155, 157 (1997).
     The purpose of the stay is to minimize the consequences of an alleged prohibited
     personnel practice. Id. In evaluating a request for an extension of a stay, the
     Board will review the record in the light most favorable to OSC and will grant a
     stay extension request if OSC’s prohibited personnel practice claim is not clearly
     unreasonable. Id. at 158. The Board may grant the extension for any period that
     it considers appropriate.   5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(B); Special Counsel ex rel.
     Waddell v. Department of Justice, 105 M.S.P.R. 208, ¶ 3 (2007).
¶5         In its stay extension request, OSC asserts that it continues to have
     reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. McDaniel’s probationary termination
     constitutes a prohibited personnel practice pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and
     (b)(9)(C), and it states that its investigation is ongoing. U-2 SRF, Tab 1 at 7-8.
     OSC explains the actions it has taken thus far, to include, among other things,
     serving the agency with a request for information, which the agency has partially
     responded to, conducting seven witness interviews, and serving the agency with a
     supplemental request for information based on those interviews . Id. at 5. OSC
     requests this extension to allow the agency to produce the requested information
     and for OSC to conduct additional necessary witness interviews, review and
     assess the full evidentiary record, and determine whether further action is
     warranted. Id. at 5-8.
¶6         Viewing the record in the light most favorable to OSC, and considering the
     fact that the evidentiary record supporting OSC’s initial stay request does not
     appear to have changed materially since the initial stay was granted, an extension
     of the stay is not clearly unreasonable to allow OSC time to co ntinue its
     investigation, attempt a resolution of this matter, and, if necessary, pursue
                                                                                         4

     corrective action before the Board.         Special Counsel v. Small Business
     Administration, 73 M.S.P.R. 12, 13-14 (1997).
¶7        Finally, a separate determination must be made on the length of a requested
     stay. Waddell, 105 M.S.P.R. 208, ¶ 5. It is the intent of Congress that stays not
     be extended for prolonged periods of time. Special Counsel v. Department of the
     Treasury, 71 M.S.P.R. 419, 421 (1996). Moreover the Board is obligated to press
     OSC to present corrective action cases in a timely manner. Id. Nevertheless, this
     is OSC’s first extension request in this matter, and the agency does not oppose the
     request. U-2 SRF, Tab 2. Accordingly, in light of these factors, we find that a
     60-day extension of the stay is warranted, and we therefore grant OSC ’s request.

                                          ORDER
¶8        Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(B), a 60-day extension of the stay is
     hereby GRANTED, and it is ORDERED as follows:
           (1)    The stay issued on April 10, 2023, is extended through and including
                 July 23, 2023, on the terms and conditions set forth in that Order;
           (2)    The agency shall not effect any changes in Mr. McDaniel’s duties or
                 responsibilities that are inconsistent with his salary or grade level, or
                 impose upon him any requirement which is not required of other
                 employees of comparable position, salary, or grade level;
           (3)    Within 5 working days of this Order, the agency shall submit
                 evidence to the Clerk of the Board showing that it has complied with
                 this Order;
           (4)    Any request for an extension of this stay pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
                 § 1214(b)(1)(B) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.136(b) must be received by the
                 Clerk of the Board and the agency, together with any further
                 evidentiary support, on or before July 7, 2023; and
           (5)    Any comments on such a request that the agency wants the Board to
                 consider pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(C) and 5 C.F.R.
                                                                        5

           § 1201.136(b) must be received by the Clerk of the Board on or
           before July 14, 2023.

FOR THE BOARD:                      /s/ for
                                    Jennifer Everling
                                    Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.