Court Opinion

ID: 9372812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:00:50.670171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:37.827718
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CHRISTINE L. HILL,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       DC-0752-16-0744-I-2

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: February 21, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Bradley R. Marshall, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for the appellant.

           Louise A. Schmidt, Esquire, Alexandria, Virginia, 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 her removal and denied her affirmative defense of retaliation for
     engaging in protected equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. On petition
     for review, the appellant challenges the administrative judge’s findings that 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     agency proved its sole charge of absence without leave (AWOL) and that she
     failed to prove her EEO retaliation affirmative defense.      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 clarify the analysis of the AWOL charge, we AFFIRM
     the initial decision.

     The administrative judge properly sustained the AWOL charge.
¶2         To prove an AWOL charge, an agency must demonstrate that the employee
     was absent without authorization and, if the employee requested leave, that the
     request was properly denied. Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R.
     612, ¶ 28 n.5 (2015), overruled in part by Pridgen v. Office of Management and
     Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 23-25. When an employee has requested leave to
     cover her absences, an AWOL charge will be sustained only if the agency
     establishes that her requests were properly denied. Id., ¶ 28. If the employee
     requested leave without pay (LWOP) for the periods when she was pl aced in an
     AWOL status, the Board will examine the record as a whole to determine if the
     denial of LWOP was reasonable under the circumstances. Id. Ordinarily, when
     an employee who is incapacitated for duty has exhausted all of her leave, an
                                                                                      3

     agency may properly deny her LWOP request when there is no foreseeable end to
     her absences and when those absences are a burden on the agency. Id., ¶ 29.
¶3        In addition, contrary to the appellant’s assertion, an agency is not required
     to provide an employee with notice of her leave status. Cresson v. Department of
     the Air Force, 33 M.S.P.R. 178, 181 (1987); Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tab 5 at 6. Rather, it is the employee who is responsible for requesting leave and
     providing the agency with the necessary supporting medical documentation.
     Cresson, 33 M.S.P.R. at 181. An appellant cannot assume that an agency has
     approved leave in the absence of any notification on a leave request; to do so
     would be inconsistent with the appellant’s responsibility for requesting leave and
     keeping the agency informed about her availability for work.      See Johnson v.
     General Services Administration, 46 M.S.P.R. 630, 634, aff’d, 944 F.2d 913
     (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Table).
¶4        The agency informed the appellant on March 2, 2016, that her failure to
     request—and obtain—approval for leave after March 18, 2016, or her failure to
     report to duty after March 18, 2016, may result in her being coded AWOL.
     Hill v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-16-0744-I-1, Initial
     Appeal File (IAF), Tab 8 at 76. Although the appellant sent emails on March 15
     and March 18, 2016, seeking an extension of her leave under the Family and
     Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) from March 21 through April 22, 2016, the
     agency did not receive them because they were blocked by its spam filter, and
     neither party was alerted to the delivery failure . IAF, Tab 8 at 79-80, Tab 14
     at 37; Hearing Transcript, Day 2 (HT 2) at 6-9, 16-18 (testimony of the IT
     Division Chief for the Department of Defense Education Activity Americas).
     Indeed, in an email dated April 29, 2016, the appellant admitted that she had not
     received a response from the agency regarding her March 15 and March 18
     requests, and thus she resent them. IAF, Tab 8 at 147.
¶5        Here, the administrative judge properly found that the appellant was absent
     without authorization from March 21 through May 12, 2016. Hill v. Department
                                                                                      4

     of Defense, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-16-0744-I-2, Appeal File, Tab 21, Initial
     Decision (ID) at 2-12. As to her absence without authorization from March 21
     through April 22, 2016, we find that the appellant’s failure to follow-up on her
     request to extend her FMLA leave until April 29, 2016, seven days after the
     requested extension period had passed, is inconsistent with her responsibility for
     requesting leave and that the administrative judge, therefore, properly found that
     the agency proved that the appellant was AWOL from March 21 through April 22,
     2016. ID at 11; see Johnson, 46 M.S.P.R. at 634. Nevertheless, as the deciding
     official noted in the decision letter, the appellant had 3 days of her 60-day
     entitlement to FMLA leave remaining when the agency removed her. IAF, Tab 8
     at 155. Therefore, even assuming that the agency was required at the time that it
     ultimately received her request to retroactively approve those remaining 3 days of
     leave, the administrative judge properly found that the leave would only carry her
     until March 24, 2016.     ID at 12.   Accordingly, we affirm the administrative
     judge’s alternate finding that the agency proved by preponderant evidence that,
     even if the agency was required to retroactively approve her remaining FMLA
     leave, the appellant still was AWOL from March 24 through April 22, 2016. Id.
¶6        As to her absence without leave from April 25 through May 12, 2016, we
     find the agency’s decision not to approve her request for an extension of leave
     during this time period reasonable under the circumstances.           See Savage,
     122 M.S.P.R. 612, ¶¶ 28-29. Significantly, the administrative judge credited the
     testimony of the appellant’s supervisor that her fourth grade teacher position w as
     “mission essential” and that her continued absence had a “tangible, deleterious
     impact” on the fourth grade students. ID at 15. Moreover, at the time of her
     request, the appellant was living in Virginia and had never even visited her duty
     station in North Carolina, she had been continuously absent from duty for nearly
     5 months, including approximately 1 month of AWOL, and her most recent
     doctor’s evaluation that she provided the agency, dated April 20, 2016, indicated
     that she needed to continue her treatment for at least an additional 7-8 weeks.
                                                                                       5

IAF, Tab 8 at 81, 85; HT 2 at 115, 202-03 (testimony of the appellant).
Accordingly, we find that the agency proved the AWOL charge for the appellant’s
absence without authorization from April 25 through May 12, 2016. See, e.g.,
Young v. U.S. Postal Service, 79 M.S.P.R. 25, 39 (1998) (finding that a denial of
LWOP for the period of absence was reasonable when her absence was a burden
to the agency and there was no foreseeable end to her absence after having been
continuously absent from duty for nearly 7 months).             These two periods of
AWOL, spanning from March 24 through May 12, 2016, combine for a total of
25 workdays. Under the circumstances, in which the administrative judge found
that the appellant, at a minimum, was AWOL on 25 of the specified 28 workdays,
we find that the agency proved the essence of its charge. 2               See Hicks v.
Department of the Treasury, 62 M.S.P.R. 71, 74 (1994), aff’d, 48 F.3d 1235
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (Table).

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      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

2
  The administrative judge also found in the alternative that, even assuming that the
appellant may have been deemed to have justifiably relied on the agency’s past record
of somewhat permissive and occasionally retroactive approval of past requests for
FMLA leave, no such misapprehension could suffice to explain her failure to report
after May 3, 2016, when the agency confirmed by email that her FMLA leave had been
exhausted and that she had been carried in an AWOL status since March 21, 2016.
ID at 12. In so finding, he implicitly discredited the appellant’s assertion that she did
not receive the May 3, 2016 email until May 16, 2016, but he did so without
explanation. PFR File, Tab 5 at 17. Nevertheless, as explained above, we find that the
administrative judge properly sustained the AWOL charge from March 24 through
May 12, 2016. Accordingly, we vacate this alternate finding.
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.
                                                                                        6

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 appropriat e 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 applica ble 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 choice s 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 particu lar
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.
                                                                                    7

      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. ____ , 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
                                                                                 8

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
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
                                                                                      9

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.

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.
                                                                       10

      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.