Court Opinion

ID: 9373288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:58.093435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.695481
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ERIC BENNETT,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  NY-0752-14-0073-C-2

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF                                   DATE: October 26, 2022
       TRANSPORTATION,
                 Agency.

               THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jonathan Bell, Esquire and Susan Tylar, Garden City, New York, for the
             appellant.

           Daniel P. Kohlmeyer, Esquire, Jamaica, New York, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                           ORDER

¶1         This matter is before the Board on the appellant’s petition for review of the
     compliance initial decision, which granted in part and denied in part his petition
     for enforcement of the Board’s final decision reversing his removal.           For the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review.          We
     AFFIRM the compliance initial decision AS MODIFIED to find the agency in
     noncompliance to the extent it failed to provide sufficient and clear information
     regarding its calculation of the appellant’s overtime hours as a part of the back
     pay award and ORDER the agency to submit satisfactory evidence of compliance.

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2           The appellant was employed by the agency as an Air Traffic Control
     Specialist.      Bennett   v.   Department    of   Transportation,   MSPB    Docket
     No. NY-0752-14-0073-I-2, Appeal File, Tab 21, Initial Decision (ID) at 1. On
     March 25, 2011, he experienced an on-the-job injury when he had a debilitating
     emotional response after he descended an aircraft too soon and lo st separation
     between the aircraft that was descending and one taking off, nearly causing a
     mid-air collision. ID at 2. As a result of the emotional trauma, the appellant was
     unable to work. ID at 2-6. After years of medical visits and documentation and
     questions on whether he could return to work, the agency removed the appellant
     for nondisciplinary reasons, effective November 9, 2013. ID at 2, 12-13.
¶3           On July 29, 2016, an administrative judge issued an initial decision finding
     that the agency improperly removed the appellant and ordering the agency to
     cancel the removal and retroactively restore the appellant , effective November 9,
     2013.     ID at 27, 37.     It also ordered the agency to pay the appellant the
     appropriate amount of back pay with interest and to adjust benefits with
     appropriate credits and deductions. ID at 37. Neither party petitioned for review
     of the initial decision, which became final on September 2, 2016. ID at 40.
¶4           On January 23, 2017, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement. Bennett
     v. Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-14-0073-C-1,
     Compliance File (C-1 CF), Tab 1. The administrative judge dismissed the appeal
     without prejudice to allow the parties to sort through some of the enforcement
     issues that the appellant had raised.        C-1 CF, Tab 13, Compliance Initial
     Decision.     Upon the automatic refiling of the petition for enforcement, the
                                                                                        3

     appellant narrowed the scope of his enforcement challenges and argued that :
     (1) the agency failed to correctly calculate his overtime pay; (2) the agency failed
     to pay an award; and (3) it failed to give the appellant the opportunity to “buy
     back” his leave.     Bennett v. Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket
     No. NY-0752-14-0073-C-2, Compliance File (C-2 CF), Tab 6 at 6-8.
¶5         On August 1, 2017, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial
     decision granting the petition for enforcement in part and denying it in part.
     C-2 CF, Tab 11, Compliance Initial Decision (CID). Specifically, she found that
     the agency established that the appellant complied with the Board’s final decision
     regarding the back pay computation for overtime hours and that the appellant was
     not entitled to buy back leave. CID at 3-6. Accordingly, the administrative judge
     denied the petition for enforcement regarding these two issues.           CID at 6.
     However, the administrative judge also granted the petition in part, finding that
     the agency failed to establish that it paid the appellant a bonus award to which he
     was entitled. CID at 4-6.
¶6         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the compliance initial
     decision arguing that the administrative judge erred in finding that the agency
     correctly computed the overtime hours he was due as a part of the back pay
     award. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 3 at 6-9. The agency has filed a
     response. PFR File, Tab 5.

        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶7         When the Board reverses a personnel action, it orders that the appellant be
     placed, as nearly as possible, in the same situation he would have b een in had the
     wrongful personnel action not occurred.      Rittgers v. Department of the Army,
     123 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶ 13 (2015). Overtime back pay may be computed based on
     either the appellant’s own overtime history or the average overtime hours worked
     by similarly situated employees during the relevant time period. Id. Although
     the appellant is not entitled to receive a windfall, he is entitled to be restored to
     the status quo ante, and the agency must use the method of computation most
                                                                                     4

     likely to achieve this goal. Id. The Board will not nullify the method employed
     by the agency in calculating overtime back pay in the absence of a showing that
     the method was unreasonable or unworkable, id., but the agency bears the
     ultimate burden of proving its compliance with a Board order, New v. Department
     of Veterans Affairs, 106 M.S.P.R. 217, ¶ 6 (2007), aff’d, 293 F. App’x 779 (Fed.
     Cir. 2008).

     The agency’s selection of method to compute the appellant’s overtime hours was
     reasonable.
¶8        Here, the agency asserts that it relied on the appellant’s prior overtime
     history for 2010, the year before his injury, to accurately estimate the amount of
     overtime hours to include in his back pay award. C-1 CF, Tab 7 at 5-6, 13; PFR
     File, Tab 5 at 4-5. To support this decision, the agency submitted 2011 overtime
     records of similarly situated employees, which demonstrate that the appellant’s
     average overtime hours applied to the back pay period exceed the average
     overtime hours worked by similarly situated employees a year later.       C -2 CF,
     Tab 7 at 8. It also submitted an affidavit from a staff manager stating that there
     was no mandatory overtime policy at the appellant’s station in 2011. Id. at 7.
     Based on this evidence, the administrative judge found that the agency’s decision
     to pay the appellant overtime based on his pre-removal overtime hours was not
     unreasonable. CID at 4.
¶9        The appellant argued below and again on review that overtime became
     mandatory in 2011 and that the average hours of overtime worked by similarly
     situated employees increased substantially in 2016. PFR File, Tab 3 at 6. To
     support these claims, the appellant submitted an affidavit and what purport to be
     the overtime records of allegedly similarly situated employees for 2016. C-1 CF,
     Tab 9 at 5-6, 9, 12-13, 26. Thus, the appellant argues that because agency policy
     and requirements changed after 2010 and there was a demonstrable increase in
     overtime worked in 2016, it was not reasonable for the agency to rely on 2010
                                                                                       5

      records to calculate his overtime hours for the back pay period. PFR File, Tab 3
      at 6-9.
¶10         We find no reason to disturb the agency’s method of selection in calculating
      overtime hours.     The appellant’s affidavit is directly contradicted by the staff
      manager’s affidavit, and there is no other evidence in the record proving that
      there was mandatory overtime during any period between 2011 and 2016.
      Further, the appellant has only submitted 1 year of overtime records. The record
      contains no additional evidence showing that between 2012 and 2015, similarly
      situated employees worked overtime hours consistent with the 2016 records and
      in substantial excess of the appellant’s hours in 2010 and the average in 2011.
      Based on the foregoing, we agree with the administrative judge’s conclusions and
      find that the appellant has failed to show that the agency’s selected method was
      unreasonable.     Accordingly, we will not nullify that selection.    See Rittgers,
      123 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶ 13.

      The agency has not presented clear and understandable evidence that its
      calculation for the appellant’s overtime hours was accurate.
¶11         Nonetheless, despite our agreement with the administrative judge that the
      agency’s decision to pay the appellant overtime based on his pre -removal
      overtime hours was not unreasonable, we find that the agency has failed to meet
      its ultimate burden of proving compliance regarding the overtime calculations.
      See Stone v. Department of Health & Human Services, 38 M.S.P.R. 634, 638
      (1988) (stating that it is within the Board’s authority to address an issue not
      raised by the parties before the initial decision becomes final). The Board has
      held that an agency’s assertion of compliance must include a clear explanation of
      its compliance actions supported by credible evidence and understandable
      documentary evidence.      Tubesing v. Department of Health & Human Services,
      112 M.S.P.R. 393, ¶ 17 (2009).       We find that the evidence submitted by the
      agency to demonstrate the accuracy of its calculations is neither clear nor
      understandable.
                                                                                           6

¶12         Here, the administrative judge concluded that the agency estimated the
      appellant’s overtime at 232 hours. CID at 4. However, there does not appear to
      be any evidence in the record that explicitly confirms this number.           Thus, to
      arrive at this number, we are left to assume that the administrative judge pieced
      together several documents to effectively make the agency’s case for it. To wit,
      the record includes an affidavit from a Payroll Program Specialist that provides
      overtime hours retroactively granted to the appellant per a series of time segments
      during the back pay period. C-1 CF, Tab 7 at 9-11. The affidavit does not clearly
      state that the appellant earned 232 hours of overtime in 2010. Rather, t o arrive at
      the 232 number, one must read this affidavit in conjunction with another affidavit
      from a Management Support Specialist, who stated that she “used the hours
      Mr. Bennett worked in each pay period the one year prior to his [Office of
      Workers’ Compensation Programs] injury . . . [and] applied these hours to the
      same pay periods in 2015 and 2016.” 2 C-1 CF, Tab 7 at 13. If one refers back to
      the Payroll Program Specialist’s affidavit and adds up the overtime granted to the
      appellant between January 11 through June 13, 2015, and June 14, 2015 , through
      January 9, 2016, one arrives at 231.5 hours, or approximately 232 hours, as stated
      by the administrative judge. Id. at 10-11; CID at 4.
¶13         If the inquiry ended there, we would agree with the administrative judge
      that the agency presented sufficient evidence of its calculation of overtime hours
      for the back pay period. However, the Management Support Specialist said in her
      affidavit that these numbers were applied to 2015 and 2016. C-1 CF, Tab 7 at 13.
      If we refer back to the Payroll Program Specialist’s affidavit, the appellant was

      2
        When this affidavit was submitted, the agency took the position that it was not
      required to pay back pay during the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
      (OWCP) period because the appellant already was receiving outside compensation from
      OWCP. C-1 CF, Tab 7 at 5. Thus, it only applied the appellant’s 2010 overtime hours
      to 2015 and 2016. Id. at 13. The administrative judge has since ruled that the agency
      was required to pay the appellant back pay during the entire back pay period, minus any
      deductions, including an offset for any OWCP wage replacement benefits he actually
      received. C-1 CF, Tab 12 at 1-2.
                                                                                        7

      granted approximately 153 overtime hours in 2016. Id. at 11. Although the back
      pay calculations ended in October 2016, and therefore did not include the entire
      year because the appellant had been reinstated by that time, id. at 19, if the
      Management Support Specialist’s claim that the same numbers were appl ied to
      2015 and 2016, the time periods of January through June would be the same for
      both years, yet they are not, id. at 9-14. To further confuse matters, the appellant
      submitted what appear to be 2010 overtime records, which reflect his hours of
      overtime worked as 215 hours. C-1 CF, Tab 9 at 9. Therefore, we find that the
      agency has failed to present clear and understandable evidence that its calculation
      of the appellant’s overtime hours is accurate and thus has failed to meet its
      burden to show that it is in full compliance with the back pay award ordered in
      the final decision reversing his removal.

                                           ORDER
¶14        We ORDER the agency to submit to the Clerk of the Board within 60 days
      of the date of this Order satisfactory evidence of compliance. This evidence shall
      adhere to the requirements set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(6)(i), including
      submission of evidence and a narrative statement of compliance. The agency’s
      submission shall demonstrate that it properly calculated the appellant’s overtime
      hours for 2010 and that the back pay awarded to the appellant reflects that
      calculation. The agency must serve all parties with copies of its submission.
¶15        The agency’s submission should be filed under the separate docket
      number    assigned    to   the   compliance    referral   matter,    MSPB Docket
      No. NY-0752-14-0073-X-1.         All subsequent filings should refer to that
      compliance referral docket number set forth above and should be faxed to
      (202) 653-7130 or mailed to the following address:
                                     Clerk of the Board
                             U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
                                    1615 M Street, N.W.
                                   Washington, D.C. 20419
                                                                                         8

      Submissions may also be made by electronic filing at the MSPB’s e -Appeal site
      (https://e-appeal.mspb.gov) in accordance with the Board’s regulation at 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.14.
¶16        The appellant may respond to the agency’s evidence of compliance within
      20 days of the date of service of the agency’s submission.                5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.183(a)(8). If the appellant does not respond to the agency’s evidence of
      compliance, the Board may assume that he is satisfied with the agency’s actions
      and dismiss the petition for enforcement.
¶17        The agency is reminded that if it fails to provide adequate evidence of
      compliance, the responsible agency official and the agency’s representative may
      be required to appear before the General Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection
      Board to show cause why the Board should not impose sanctions for the agency’s
      noncompliance in this case. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1). The Board’s authority to
      impose sanctions includes the authority to order that the responsible agency
      official “shall not be entitled to receive payment for service as an employee
      during any period that the order has not been complied with.” 5 U.S.C.
      § 1204(e)(2)(A).
¶18        This Order does not constitute a final order and is therefore not subject to
      judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). Upon the Board’s final resolution of
      the remaining issues in this petition for enforcement, a final order shall be issued
      which shall be subject to judicial review.

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