Court Opinion

ID: 9929221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 23:01:28.941477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:07.876991
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

LISA JUCHA,                                     DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                  SF-0752-17-0720-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,                         DATE: January 31, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Lisa Jucha , Torrance, California, pro se.

      Brandon M. Barros , China Lake, California, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her involuntary resignation appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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).
      The appellant asserts new evidence for the first time on review. Petition
for Review File, Tab 1 at 4, 11-12. For instance, she acknowledges that she “did
not mention this in [her] filings, [but] each and every medical/psychological
person [she] consulted urged [her] to quit.” Id. at 4. She also states that she
“recently learned” that several other employees had turned in tracking reports late
and “badmouthed” coworkers but that she was the only employee “written up or
threatened with suspension.”    Id. at 12.   The appellant further states that she
learned that the agency had decided not to backfill her Sign Language Interpreter
(SLI) position and another SLI position, which she asserts demonstrates the
fraudulent nature of the position. Id. The appellant repeats her arguments that
the agency fraudulently “lured” her into an interpreter position that was primarily
an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Specialist position, failed to provide
her adequate EEO Specialist training, and subjected her to a hostile work
environment. Id. at 4-5, 10. Finally, she argues that the administrative judge
abused his discretion in “minimizing [her] plight” and discrediting her written
testimony. Id. at 7, 10-11.
      Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d), the Board will not generally consider
evidence submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a showing
that it was unavailable before the record was closed despite the party’s due
                                                                                    3

diligence.    Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980).
Moreover, the Board will generally not grant a petition for review based on
“new” evidence absent a showing that it is of sufficient weight to warrant an
outcome different from that of the initial decision.            Russo v. Veterans
Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980).
      The appellant offers no explanation for why she did not include in her
submissions below information from the medical or psychological professionals
with whom she consulted, and she does not include any documentary evidence to
support her assertion that other individuals in her office who engaged in similar
behavior were not disciplined or that the agency did not backfill any SLI
positions. Even if we determined that the appellant’s evidence on review was
“new,” it does not warrant a different outcome. We affirm the administrative
judge’s finding that the appellant failed to prove by preponderant evidence 2 that
her resignation was involuntary.      Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 18, Initial
Decision at 5-19.
      In cases wherein intolerable working conditions are alleged, both the courts
and the Board will find an action involuntary only if the employee demonstrates
that the agency engaged in a course of action that made working conditions so
difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in that employee’s position would
have felt compelled to resign. Markon v. Department of State, 71 M.S.P.R. 574,
577-78 (1996).      When an appellant raises allegations of discrimination and
reprisal in connection with an involuntariness claim, such evidence may be
considered only in terms of the standard for voluntariness in a particular
situation.   Id. at 578.   The appellant’s evidence in support of her claims of
disparate treatment and reprisal does not warrant the conclusion that her
resignation was involuntary because the agency was investigating her EEO
complaint and she could have contested any agency actions or final decisions.
2
 A preponderance of the evidence is the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable
person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a
contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).
                                                                                      4

See, e.g., Axsom v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 110 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 17
(2009) (stating that the appellant had the option to stand and fight the alleged
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation rather than resign).
      The appellant’s remaining arguments on review largely constitute mere
disagreement      with   the   administrative   judge’s   findings    and    credibility
determinations.    For example, her assertion regarding the allegedly fraudulent
nature of her SLI position is contradicted by the vacancy announcement and
position description, both of which explain that the position includes SLI duties
and EEO duties. IAF, Tab 7 at 47-49, Tab 14 at 68. Moreover, for the reasons
described in the initial decision, the appellant’s description of her work
environment does not evince the type of intolerable working conditions that
deprive an individual of a meaningful choice and would compel a reasonable
person to resign. See Miller v. Department of Defense, 85 M.S.P.R. 310, ¶ 32
(2000) (explaining that dissatisfaction with work assignments, a feeling of being
unfairly criticized, or difficult or unpleasant working conditions are generally not
so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign). Finally, the appellant
has not persuaded us that the administrative judge’s credibility findings were in
error. See Broughton v. Department of Health and Human Services, 33 M.S.P.R.
357, 359 (1987) (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 on issues of credibility).

                          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

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

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:
                              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
                                                                                    6

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
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,
                                                                                      7

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
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

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,
                                                                                  8

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.

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.