Court Opinion

ID: 9951577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 15:01:11.8027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:49.344757
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MICHAEL W. ERVIN,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         SF-0752-17-0722-X-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: March 15, 2024
                   Agency.

               THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Mary DiGioia , Bellflower, California, for the appellant.

           Catherine V Meek , Long Beach, California, for the agency.

           Roderick D Eves , St. Louis, Missouri, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

¶1         On September 25, 2017, the appellant appealed his removal from the
     position of Manager, Customer Service, to the Board.            Ervin v. U.S. Postal
     Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-17-0722-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 1. On December 3, 2018, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     mitigating the appellant’s removal to a demotion to the position of Supervisor,
     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     Customer Service. IAF, Tab 30, Initial Decision (ID) at 14. The administrative
     judge ordered the agency to cancel the appellant’s removal and substitute in its
     place a demotion to the position of Supervisor, Customer Service; and to pay the
     appellant the appropriate amount of back pay, with interest, as well as to adjust
     the appellant’s benefits with appropriate credits and deductions. ID at 14-15.
     That initial decision became the final decision of the Board on January 7, 2019,
     after neither party petitioned the full Board for review. ID at 16-17.
¶2        On March 18, 2019, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement of the
     Board’s Order, alleging that the agency had not yet returned him to work. Ervin
     v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-17-0722-C-1, Compliance File
     (CF), Tab 1 at 3. On May 10, 2019, the administrative judge issued a compliance
     initial decision granting the petition for enforcement because the agency failed to
     demonstrate that it cancelled the appellant’s removal; placed him in a Supervisor
     position; or paid him back pay, interest, and benefits. CF, Tab 5, Compliance
     Initial Decision at 4.   The administrative judge again ordered the agency to:
     (1) cancel the removal and substitute in its place a demotion to the position of
     Supervisor, Customer Service; (2) pay the appellant the correct amount of back
     pay, interest, and benefits; and (3) inform the Board in writing of all actions taken
     to comply with the Board’s Order and the date on which it believes it has fully
     complied.
¶3        On July 9, 2019, the agency filed a statement of compliance pursuant to
     5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.183(a) and 1201.183(a)(6)(ii).      Ervin v. U.S. Postal Service,
     MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-17-0722-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF),
     Tab 3. The agency stated in its response that it believed there was no need to
     cancel the appellant’s removal because the removal was never actually
     effectuated due to the appellant’s resignation. CRF, Tab 3 at 4. The agency
     further stated that it reactivated the appellant’s employment and placed him into a
     position as Supervisor, Customer Service, at the Pico Rivera Post Office, where
     he reported for the first time on June 24, 2019. Id. The agency finally stated
                                                                                       3

     that, for the agency to be able to complete the back pay requirement, the appellant
     needed to complete the agency’s back pay forms addressing outside employment
     and other sources of income. Id. at 5.
¶4        On July 22, 2019, the appellant responded to the agency’s proof of
     compliance. CRF, Tab 4. The appellant asserted that his new assignment was
     farther from his home than his original position, despite similar vacant positions
     existing in his original facility. Id. at 11. The appellant further stated that he
     submitted the requisite back pay forms to the agency on July 1, 2019. Id.
¶5        On June 19, 2020, the Clerk of the Board issued an Order stating that
     further evidence from the agency was required before the Board could make a
     determination on compliance. CRF, Tab 5 at 2-3. The Clerk of the Board noted
     that, as of the date of the Order, the agency had not yet submitted any evidence
     demonstrating that all back pay funds have been paid to the appellant, provided
     any explanation as to how it chose the appellant’s new position, or stated whether
     it cancelled the Standard Form (SF) 50 reflecting the appellant’s retirement. Id.
     The Clerk of the Board directed the agency to inform the Board whether all back
     pay funds had been paid to the appellant, and if the agency claimed that the back
     pay funds had been paid, the agency’s submission was required to include full
     details of the back pay calculations and a narrative summary of the payments. Id.
     The Clerk of the Board further directed the agency to state whether it had
     cancelled the petitioner’s retirement SF-50 and also inform the Board regarding
     how it chose the appellant’s new position, including the location, and explain why
     the appellant was not returned to his original work location. Id.
¶6        On April 23, 2021, the Clerk of the Board issued another Order due to the
     agency’s failure to respond to the June 19, 2020 Order.        CRF, Tab 6.     The
     April 23, 2021 Order repeated the June 19, 2020 directive to the agency and also
     warned the agency that failure to submit the required information may lead to the
     issuance of sanctions against the responsible agency official pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
                                                                                       4

      § 1204(e)(2)(A) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c). Id. at 2. The agency provided no
      response to the April 23, 2021 Order.
¶7         On September 28, 2022, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause due to
      the agency’s failure to respond to the April 23, 2021 Order. CRF, Tab 9. The
      Board ordered the agency to submit evidence of compliance and further ordered
      Cynthia Garcia, the agency management official identified as responsible for
      ensuring the agency’s compliance, to show cause why the Board should not
      impose sanctions for the agency’s noncompliance. Id. at 4.
¶8         On December 13, 2023, after multiple contact attempts by the Board’s
      Office of General Counsel, the agency submitted what it deemed its “Notice of
      Compliance.”    CRF, Tab 12.        In its submission, the agency asserted that it
      believed it was in compliance with the Board’s December 3, 2018 Order with
      respect to the appellant’s return to employment but also stated that it was still
      researching whether appellant had been paid all back pay. Id. at 4-6. The agency
      did not, however, respond to the Clerk’s Order that the agency show cause why
      Cynthia Garcia should not be sanctioned for the agency’s failure to respond to
      previous orders. Id.
¶9         Since the agency’s submission of the December 13, 2023 “Notice of
      Compliance,” the Board’s Office of General Counsel has made multiple attempts
      to contact agency counsel regarding the agency’s efforts at further compliance but
      has not received any substantive response from agency counsel of record,
      although agency counsel occasionally responded by email to indicate she was in
      receipt of these communications and fully aware of the Board’s orders and the
      agency’s unfulfilled obligations.
¶10        Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1204(e)(2)(A) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c), the Board
      has authority to impose sanctions against the agency official responsible for
      noncompliance with a Board order. Such sanctions may include a ruling adverse
      to the agency and certification to the Comptroller General of the United States
      that no payment is to be made to certain agency employees found to be in
                                                                                          5

      noncompliance with the Board’s order.       5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(e).      The agency
      identified Cynthia Garcia as the agency official charged with complying with the
      Board’s Order. 2 CRF, Tab 3 at 5.
¶11          It has been nearly 5 years since the administrative judge first found the
      agency not in compliance, and the agency has put forward minimal effort
      demonstrating it has reached full compliance with respect to the appellant’s back
      pay.     Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1204(e)(2)(A) and 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.183(c), the agency, Ms. Garcia, and agency counsel, Ms. Catherine Meek,
      are hereby DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed
      for the agency’s failure to comply with the Board’s December 3, 2018 Order.
      The agency, Ms. Garcia, and Ms. Meek shall submit their written responses
      within 21 days of the date of this Order. If no response is filed within this time
      frame, the Board will issue an order requiring the agency, Ms. Garcia, and
      Ms. Meek to appear in person before the Board at MSPB Headquarters,
      Washington, D.C. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c).

      2
        In the September 28, 2022 Order, the Board ordered the agency to inform the Board if
      Ms. Garcia was no longer the agency official responsible for ensuring compliance.
      CRF, Tab 9 at 4. The agency’s December 13, 2023 “Notice of Compliance” did not
      respond to the Board’s Order in this regard, and the Board thus presumes Ms. Garcia is
      still the correct official. The agency is therefore ORDERED to serve a copy of this
      Order upon Ms. Garcia. The agency is further ORDERED to submit proof with its
      response that it served a copy of this Order upon Ms. Garcia. Finally, because the
      agency’s current representative has repeatedly failed to respond to Board orders and
      inquiries from the Board’s Office of General Counsel, this Order is concurrently being
      served upon Roderick Eves, MSPB Unit Lead for the agency, in order to ensure that the
      agency is fully aware of and responsive to its obligations under this Order.
                                                                                      6

¶12        The appellant shall file any response to the agency’s, Ms. Garcia’s, and Ms.
      Meek’s submissions within 21 days of the date of service of each submission. If
      the appellant fails to respond, the Board may assume he is satisfied and dismiss
      the petition for enforcement.

      FOR THE BOARD:                       ______________________________
                                           Gina K. Grippando
                                           Clerk of the Board
      Washington, D.C.