Court Opinion

ID: 9373350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:22.441112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.731118
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     GREGORY G. JACKS,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                         DA-0432-21-0018-I-1

                  v.

     SOCIAL SECURITY                                  DATE: October 5, 2022
       ADMINISTRATION,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Joseph D. Ybarra, Esquire, San Antonio, Texas, for the appellant.

           Angeline S. Reese, Esquire, and Lisa K. Paquette, Esquire, Dallas, Texas,
             for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     sustained his chapter 43 performance-based removal. On petition for review, the
     appellant argues that the administrative judge did not properly consider whether

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     his performance was unacceptable prior to his placement on the agency’s
     equivalent to a performance improvement plan (PIP) and whether he was given a
     reasonable opportunity to improve his performance. Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1 at 9-16. He also argues that the administrative judge did not properly
     consider his claims of reprisal for filing an equal employment opportunity (EEO)
     complaint and a grievance. Id. at 16-19. 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 o f 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 outc ome 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 VACATE the administrative judge’s finding that the agency
     proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action
     absent the appellant’s protected activity, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         The administrative judge correctly found that the agency establish ed by
     substantial evidence that (1) the Office of Personnel Management approved its
     performance appraisal system; (2) the agency communicated to the appellant the
     performance standards and critical elements of his position; (3) the appellant’s
     performance standards are valid under 5 U.S.C. § 4302(c)(1); (4) the agency
     warned the appellant of the inadequacies of his performance during the appraisal
     period and gave him a reasonable opportunity to improve; and (5) the appellant’s
     performance remained unacceptable in at least one critical element.            Initial
                                                                                          3

     Appeal File, Tab 47, Initial Decision (ID) at 9-23. She also correctly found that
     the agency proved by substantial evidence that the appellant’s performance was
     unacceptable prior to his placement on a PIP.         ID at 13 -16 (citing Santos v.
     National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 990 F.3d 1355, 1360-63 (Fed. Cir.
     2021)). 2 The appellant’s arguments on review do not provide a basis to dist urb
     these findings. PFR File, Tab 1.
¶3         We also agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that the appellant
     failed to establish his affirmative defenses of reprisal for filing an EEO
     complaint, 3 a grievance, and making a protected disclosure, and also failed to
     show status-based disability discrimination and harmful procedural error.           ID
     at 24-39. The appellant’s arguments on review, which are limited to his claims of
     reprisal for filing an EEO complaint and a grievance, do not provide a basis to
     disturb the initial decision. PFR File, Tab 1. Nonetheless, we more specifically
     address the administrative judge’s discussion of the appellant’s whistleblower
     reprisal affirmative defense to correct an error that does not affect the outcome of
     the appeal.
¶4         Specifically, the administrative judge concluded that the appellant failed
     prove that he engaged in protected activity that was a contributing factor in his
     removal.      ID at 33-34.   Nonetheless, she proceeded to consider whether the
     agency met its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that it would
     have removed the appellant even in the absence of any protected activity. ID

     2
      While this case was pending on petition for review, the Board modified the standard
     applicable to chapter 43 actions in light of Santos and applied that standard to all
     pending cases. Lee v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 11, ¶¶ 13-16.
     Because the administrative judge correctly applied the Santos standard, remand under
     Lee is not required.
     3
       Because we agree with the administrative judge’s finding that the appellant failed to
     prove that his EEO complaint, which alleged age discrimination and harassment, was a
     motivating factor in his removal, we need not reach the question of whether the EEO
     complaint was a “but-for” cause of the removal. See Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168,
     1177-78 (2020).
                                                                                      4

at 34-35 (citing Carr v. Social Security Administration, 185 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir.
1999)). Because we agree with the administrative judge that the appellant failed
to establish a prima facie case of whistleblower reprisal, it was improper for the
administrative judge to then consider whether the agency met its burden to show
by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action in the
absence of the appellant’s protected activity.          See 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(2).
Accordingly, we vacate the initial decision’s finding that the agency showed by
clear and convincing evidence that it would have removed the appellant even in
the absence of his protected activity.

                         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. 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

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.
                                                                                          5

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
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
                                                                                  6

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
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
                                                                                      7

      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. 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:

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.
                                                                                8

                             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.
      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.