Court Opinion

ID: 9960493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 15:00:30.60732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:32.425782
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

    JEFFREY L. ROOT,                             DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                     SF-0752-19-0413-I-1

               v.

    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                       DATE: April 15, 2024
      SECURITY,
                Agency.

         THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

        Jeffrey L. Root , Las Vegas, Nevada, pro se.

        Michael L. Gurnee , Esquire, Centennial, Colorado, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed his removal based on the charges of unauthorized access to an
immigration system of records and lack of candor. 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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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 analyze the appellant’s retaliation claim under the standard set
forth in Pridgen v. Office of Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, we
AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113(b).
      In his initial decision, the administrative judge considered the appellant’s
retaliation claim under the standards applicable to retaliation claims arising under
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 18, Initial Decision (ID)
at 16-19. When considering such claims, the Board will find a violation of the
statute if the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that his
protected activity was a motivating factor in the contested action, even if it was
not the only reason. Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612, ¶ 41
(2015), overruled in part by Pridgen v. Office of Management and Budget ,
2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 23-25. If the appellant makes that showing, the burden shifts
to the agency to prove that it would have taken the same action in the absence of
the retaliatory motive. Id., ¶ 51. If the agency succeeds, then its violation of
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 will not require reversal of the action. Id. Applying this
framework, the administrative judge found that the appellant failed to meet his
initial burden of showing that his protected activity was a motivating factor in the
agency’s decision to remove him. ID at 20-21.
                                                                                         3

      However,    because       the   appellant   alleged   retaliation   for   requesting
reasonable accommodation for his disability, his claim is not covered by
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, but instead falls within the scope of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973. The Rehabilitation Act incorporates by reference the standards of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended by the Americans
with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008, and the Board applies those standards
to determine whether there has been a Rehabilitation Act violation.                   See
29 U.S.C. § 791(f); Miller v. Department of the Army, 121 M.S.P.R. 189, ¶ 13 n.3
(2014). A request for reasonable accommodation is protected activity under the
antiretaliation provision of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a); see Southerland v.
Department of Defense, 119 M.S.P.R. 566, ¶ 21 (2013), overruled on other
grounds by Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 47.
      In determining whether an agency has violated the antiretaliation provision
of the ADA, the Board applies a more stringent “but for” standard of causation.
Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 44-46.            In other words, to show a violation, the
appellant must show not merely that his protected activity was a motivating factor
in the contested action, but that the agency would not have taken the action in the
absence of his protected activity. Under this standard, unlike the framework for
retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, the burden of proof does not shift
to the agency. See id., ¶ 47.
      While the administrative judge did not have the benefit of Pridgen, this
does not affect the outcome of the case, because the appellant failed to show that
his protected activity was a factor at all in his removal, much less the “but for”
cause of it. On review, the appellant contends that he suffered a hostile work
environment as a result of his accommodation request, and that his supervisors
“avoided” him, “made [him] feel like not part of the team,” and assigned him a
greater workload than other employees. Petition for Review File, Tab 1 at 7 -8.
However, the appellant has provided little or no evidence that his request for
reasonable accommodation played a role in the agency’s decision to remove him
                                                                                      4

for his admitted misconduct. 2 Accordingly, we affirm as modified to incorporate
this analysis in support of the administrative judge’s ultimate conclusion that the
appellant did not establish his retaliation claim.

                         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
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. 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.

2
  The appellant’s newly submitted evidence, which indicates that his request for
accommodation was granted, does not warrant a different result. See Russo v. Veterans
Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980) (holding that the Board will 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).
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

      (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
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
                                                                                  6

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,
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:
                                                                                      7

                            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
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

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,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                8

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