Court Opinion

ID: 9367600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 15:00:40.250657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.580493
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11367    Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 1 of 15

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-11367
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        JOHN ELTON PIPER,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellant,
        versus
        SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-00570-TKW-MJF
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11367      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 2 of 15

        2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-11367

        Before JILL PRYOR, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                John Elton Piper, a civilian employee of the Navy, was
        placed on a Formal Performance Plan (“FPP”) and later terminated
        for unacceptable performance. Piper unsuccessfully pursued an
        administrative complaint with the Navy’s Equal Employment
        Opportunity (“EEO”) Office. In addition, Piper, proceeding pro se,
        sued the Navy in federal court for (1) a violation of the Civil Service
        Reform Act of 1978 (“CSRA”), (2) age discrimination, and
        (3) retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to
        the Navy on all three claims. On appeal, Piper contends the district
        court erred only as to his CSRA claim. After careful review, we
        affirm the district court’s order.
                                   I.      FACTS
               The following undisputed facts are drawn from the evidence
        in the summary judgment record.
               On April 11, 1999, the Navy hired Piper as a scientist at the
        Naval Surface Warfare Center in the Panama City Division. That
        office operates under the Naval Sea Systems Command, which is
        responsible for (1) procuring, engineering, building, and sustaining
        ships, submarines, and related combat systems; and (2) providing
        research, development, testing, evaluation, and life cycle
        sustainment support within its mission areas.
USCA11 Case: 22-11367       Document: 19-1   Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 3 of 15

        22-11367               Opinion of the Court                      3

        A.    The Sonar Beamformer Project
              In fiscal year 2013, the Navy commenced a research project
        called the Continuous Transmission Frequency Modulated
        Synthetic Aperture Sonar Project (the “sonar beamformer
        project”). The goal of that project was to write a technical report
        and program on a long-range sonar beamformer. The initial
        deadline for the project was September 2014.
               The Navy assigned a principal investigator to the sonar
        beamformer project. That person was responsible for being the
        primary contributor and project lead. In March 2014, Piper became
        the principal investigator.
               Because of the change in personnel and a report that the
        project was “promising,” department leadership gave Piper an
        extension to September 2015 to complete the sonar beamformer
        project. In September 2015, however, Piper had not finished the
        project. So Piper asked for another extension, which department
        leadership granted. The project’s new deadline was January 2016.
        Piper did not complete the project by the new deadline.
              In March 2016, during his midyear project review, Piper
        reported that the sonar beamformer project was (1) behind
        schedule, (2) out of money and (3) overdue.
        B.    Piper’s FPP
              In September 2016, months after the new January 2016
        deadline, Piper submitted the sonar beamformer project for final
USCA11 Case: 22-11367       Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 4 of 15

        4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11367

        review and approval. 1 Frank Crosby (Piper’s second-level
        supervisor) did not sign Piper’s technical report because Crosby
        (1) thought Piper’s writing style was unprofessional and (2) found
        Piper’s statement—that internet search engine results constituted
        proof of scientific validity—to be unprofessional as well.
               On January 6, 2017, Crosby placed Piper on a FPP to resolve
        Piper’s performance deficiencies. To demonstrate he was able to
        perform at an acceptable level, the FPP tasked Piper with
        completing two other assignments within sixty days. In the
        introduction section, the FPP reviewed the history of Piper’s sonar
        beamformer project as follows:
               Beginning in FY-13, you were tasked with work on
               the Long Range Synthetic Aperture Sonar project.
               The goals of the project were to write a technical
               report and program a long range sonar beamformer.
               However, during periodic task reviews, you reported
               the project was behind schedule. The project was
               scheduled to end at the end of FY-15. The task
               deadline was extended to give you more time to
               complete the work; nonetheless, during the FY-16
               mid-year task review, you reported that while you
               had made progress on the task; you had failed to
               complete the task as assigned. Your performance as
               such, is troubling and has impacted the mission of the

        1The Navy contends that Piper submitted the project for final review and
        approval in November 2016, but we use Piper’s more favorable date of
        September 2016.
USCA11 Case: 22-11367     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 5 of 15

        22-11367               Opinion of the Court                       5

              Command. This formal PP is designed to help you
              resolve your performance deficiencies and
              demonstrate you are able to perform at the
              Acceptable Level.
        (Emphases added.) As explained later, Piper’s appeal focuses on
        the two italicized statements in the FPP’s introductory section.
               However, the FPP actually tasked Piper with
        (1) demonstrating he had “the basic knowledge requirements of
        the position,” as described in the enclosures attached to the FPP,
        (2) “produc[ing] a program that can be used to remove noise in
        three-dimensional images” and (3) “maintain[ing] a work log/diary
        (using MS-Word) of [his] daily work activities” that he was to email
        to Crosby before their weekly meetings.
               The FPP warned that if Piper’s performance was deemed
        unacceptable, Crosby would propose a personnel action of
        (1) removal from federal service, (2) demotion with a reduction in
        pay, (3) demotion without a reduction in pay, or (4) reduction in
        pay while remaining in the same band level.
              On March 7, 2017, the FPP ended. Crosby found Piper’s
        performance on the two new assignments to be unacceptable and
        provided a summary and evaluation of the FPP outcome to Piper.
        C.    Piper’s Termination for Unacceptable Performance
              On March 31, 2017, Crosby issued a Notice of Proposed
        Removal for Unacceptable Performance (“Notice”). The Notice
        placed Piper on administrative leave and proposed Piper’s removal
USCA11 Case: 22-11367           Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 02/01/2023       Page: 6 of 15

        6                          Opinion of the Court                   22-11367

        “based on [his] Unacceptable Performance during a [FPP]
        conducted during the period of 6 January 2017 to 7 March 2017.”
        In the Notice’s background section, Crosby acknowledged that
        Piper “took over” the project in 2014 after a change in personnel.
        Also in the Notice, Crosby cited eight examples of Piper’s
        unacceptable performance on the FPP, such as Piper’s failure to
        stay focused on the assigned tasks and failure to follow the style
        guide that was provided to him.
                On May 2, 2017, Kerry Commander (Piper’s third-level
        supervisor) sustained Piper’s termination. Commander cited the
        Notice and Piper’s performance on the two assignments in the FPP
        for his decision to terminate Piper. Piper’s termination took effect
        the next day on May 3, 2017.
                          II.      PROCEDURAL HISTORY
        A.     Administrative Proceedings
              Before his termination, Piper started administrative
        proceedings, challenging his placement on the FPP. Specifically,
        on January 13, 2017, Piper sought informal counseling from the
        Navy’s EEO Office, alleging that Crosby placed him on the FPP
        because of his age and in retaliation for his earlier EEO complaint
        in 2015. 2 Later, on March 10, 2017, Piper submitted a formal

        2Piper’s earlier EEO complaint arose when he was not selected for a “high
        grade position.” In October 2015, Piper filed a formal complaint with the
        Navy’s EEO Office, alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of
USCA11 Case: 22-11367         Document: 19-1          Date Filed: 02/01/2023         Page: 7 of 15

        22-11367                   Opinion of the Court                                 7

        complaint about the FPP to the Navy’s EEO Office. See 29 C.F.R.
        § 1614.106.
               Then, after the Navy terminated Piper in May 2017, Piper
        amended his discrimination claim to include an allegation that the
        Navy fired him in retaliation for his 2015 EEO complaint. Piper
        also requested a hearing. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109.
               On September 11, 2019, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
        with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
        granted the Navy’s motion to dismiss in part and concluded she
        “lack[ed] jurisdiction over [Piper’s] termination because [Piper]
        was a non-probationary employee whose termination is under the
        jurisdiction of the Merit Systems Protections Board.” So the ALJ
        remanded only the termination claim to the Navy’s EEO Office for
        further processing as a mixed case complaint.
               On May 3, 2020, the Navy’s EEO Office issued its final
        agency decision, which concluded that the Navy had not
        “discriminate[d] against [Piper] based on reprisal.” See 29 C.F.R.
        § 1614.302(d)(3). 3

        his age. In October 2016, the Navy’s EEO Office found Piper had not suffered
        age discrimination.
        3 As background to the lawsuit, “[a] mixed case complaint is a complaint of
        employment discrimination filed with a federal agency based on race, color,
        religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information related to
        or stemming from an action that can be appealed to the Merit Systems
        Protection Board (MSPB).” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(a)(1); see also Kloeckner v.
        Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44, 133 S. Ct. 596, 601 (2012). An appealable agency action
USCA11 Case: 22-11367         Document: 19-1        Date Filed: 02/01/2023         Page: 8 of 15

        8                          Opinion of the Court                      22-11367

        B.     District Court Proceedings
               In January 2020, Piper, proceeding pro se, filed this action
        against the Navy in the district court. Piper’s amended complaint
        alleged his termination (1) violated the CSRA, 5 U.S.C. § 4303(a),
        (2) was age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination
        in Employment Act, and (3) was in retaliation for his earlier EEO
        complaint.
               Following discovery, the parties filed cross motions for
        summary judgment. The Navy sought summary judgment on
        Piper’s age discrimination and retaliation claims. Piper moved for

        includes a removal. 5 U.S.C. § 7512(1); Kloeckner, 568 U.S. at 44 n.1, 133 S.
        Ct. at 600 n.1. Piper has a mixed case because his formal complaint alleged his
        termination was because of age discrimination and retaliation.
        “[T]he CSRA provides diverse procedural routes for an employee’s pursuit of
        a mixed case.” Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1980
        (2017). An employee with a mixed case “may either immediately file suit in a
        district court or pursue an administrative procedure.” Doyal v. Marsh, 777
        F.2d 1526, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(2). Those administrative
        procedures are varied and include filing with either (1) the agency or (2) the
        MSPB. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.154(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(b); Kloeckner, 568 U.S. at
        44–45; 133 S. Ct. at 601.
        Here, Piper first pursued an administrative procedure by filing his complaint
        with the Navy’s EEO Office in March 2017. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.154(a); 29
        C.F.R. § 1614.302(b); Kloeckner, 568 U.S. at 45, 133 S. Ct. at 601. Because more
        than 120 days passed with no final agency decision, the regulations permitted
        Piper to bypass further administrative review and take the matter to
        the district court. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.302(d)(1)(i), 1614.310(g); Kloeckner,
        568 U.S. at 45, 133 S. Ct. at 601.
USCA11 Case: 22-11367      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 9 of 15

        22-11367               Opinion of the Court                        9

        partial summary judgment on his CSRA claim. As pertinent here,
        Piper argued that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to his
        CSRA claim because “the Navy’s removal of [him] was based on
        false statements and was unjustified.”
               The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation
        (“R&R”). The R&R recommended that the district court (1) grant
        the Navy’s motion for summary judgment on Piper’s age
        discrimination and retaliation claims, (2) deny Piper’s motion for
        partial summary judgment on his CSRA claim, and (3) grant
        summary judgment to the Navy on Piper’s CSRA claim after giving
        Piper an opportunity to be heard on his objections to the R&R.
                 On the CSRA claim, the R&R construed Piper’s amended
        complaint to contain a claim that two of Crosby’s statements in the
        FPP were false and therefore his termination was the result of
        “harmful error in the application of the agency’s procedures” in
        violation of the CSRA. The two alleged false statements were
        (1) “Beginning in FY-13, [Piper] was tasked to work on
        the . . . project” and (2) Piper “failed to complete the task as
        assigned.” The magistrate judge concluded that (1) the error in the
        first statement—i.e., the reference to FY-13 as opposed to FY-14—
        was harmless because it was irrelevant to the Navy’s decision to
        remove Piper and it was later cured in the Notice which indicated
        Piper “took over” the project in 2014 after a change in personnel
        and (2) the second statement was not false.
USCA11 Case: 22-11367         Document: 19-1          Date Filed: 02/01/2023          Page: 10 of 15

        10                          Opinion of the Court                        22-11367

               Piper objected to the magistrate judge’s R&R. Again, Piper
        stressed Crosby’s two statements in the FPP (identified above)
        were false.
              The district court overruled Piper’s objections and adopted
        the magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court entered summary
        judgment for the Navy. Piper timely appealed but only as to his
        CSRA claim. 4
                            III.     STANDARD OF REVIEW
               Ordinarily, we review de novo a district court’s order of
        summary judgment and, like the district court, draw all inferences
        in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, recognizing
        that summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no
        genuine issues of material fact. Smith v. Owens, 848 F.3d 975, 978
        (11th Cir. 2017). The parties agree that this standard of review
        governs Piper’s CSRA claim.
               Documents filed by pro se litigants are liberally construed
        and are held to less stringent standards than documents drafted by
        attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292
        (1976).

        4 On appeal, Piper’s brief explicitly states that he does not challenge the district

        court’s grant of summary judgment to the Navy on his age discrimination and
        retaliation claims. Therefore, any issues on those claims are abandoned. See
        Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014).
USCA11 Case: 22-11367       Document: 19-1       Date Filed: 02/01/2023       Page: 11 of 15

        22-11367                 Opinion of the Court                           11

                                 IV.     DISCUSSION
               The CSRA established the procedure by which a federal
        employee may seek protection for adverse personnel actions.
        Kloeckner, 568 U.S. at 44, 133 S. Ct. at 600. When an agency seeks
        to remove an employee for unacceptable performance, as was
        done here, the employee is entitled, in relevant part, to 30 days’
        advance written notice of the proposed action. 5 U.S.C.
        § 4303(b)(1)(A). That written notice must identify “specific
        instances of unacceptable performance by the employee on which
        the proposed action is based.” Id. § 4303(b)(1)(A)(i). 5
               On appeal, Piper argues that two of the “specific instances of
        unacceptable performance” listed by Crosby in the FPP are
        factually inaccurate and amount to harmful error. The two
        statements in the FPP are: (1) “Beginning in FY-13, [Piper] w[as]
        tasked with work on the . . . project”; and (2) Piper “failed to
        complete the task as assigned.”
               The problem for Piper is the Notice, not the FPP, controls
        his removal. The Notice—not the FPP—is the 30-day written
        notice in which the Navy must properly provide “specific instances

        5 The Navy argues that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) waived
        the requirement in § 4303(b)(1)(A)(i) that an agency identify the “specific
        instances of unacceptable performance” when removing an employee. We
        disagree. The OPM waived only two portions of § 4303, neither of which
        involve § 4303(b)(1)(A)(i)’s requirement when removing an employee. See 62
        Fed. Reg. 64066 (Dec. 3, 1997).
USCA11 Case: 22-11367      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 12 of 15

        12                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11367

        of unacceptable performance” to support the proposed removal of
        Piper. Id.
               The Notice, dated March 31, 2017, complied with
        § 4303(b)(1)(A)(i) by listing eight specific instances of Piper’s
        unacceptable performance during the FPP period, including
        (1) two incidents in which Piper failed to focus on the assigned tasks
        in the FPP’s first assignment and (2) six incidents in which Piper
        committed errors in the code he was asked to program or
        otherwise failed to complete a task for the FPP’s second
        assignment.
               Importantly, the Notice does not contain either of the
        statements found in the FPP that Piper claims are false. Thus, there
        is no merit to his argument that these two false statements were
        the basis for his removal.
               Piper raises only one issue as to any of these eight specifically
        identified instances of unacceptable performance. Piper claims that
        sixty days to complete the two assignments in the FPP was
        “unreasonable and unjust” because, according to the Navy’s
        response to an interrogatory, it took three mathematicians 1.5
        years to complete those tasks. But the interrogatory response Piper
        cites says it took three mathematicians 1.5 years to write “Total
        Variation Methods for Three Dimensional Lidar Image
        Denoising.” The FPP did not task Piper with writing that
        publication. Instead, the FPP tasked Piper with, in relevant part,
        “[w]rit[ing] a program that implements the algorithms described in
USCA11 Case: 22-11367     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 13 of 15

        22-11367               Opinion of the Court                        13

        3d_tv.PDF [(i.e., the publication)], which is provided with this
        plan.”
               Indeed, a copy of the publication was attached to the FPP.
        The FPP did not require Piper to “reproduce and extend” the
        publication’s results, as Piper contends, but merely to use the
        algorithms it described. So, contrary to Piper’s argument, the
        Navy’s response to the interrogatory does not show that the
        sixty-day timeline in the FPP was unreasonable.
                For these reasons, the Navy complied with the requirements
        of § 4303(a) and (b)(1)(A)(i) in removing Piper, and the district
        court properly found that there was no genuine issue of material
        fact as to the CSRA claim.
                But even assuming the FPP was pertinent to the CSRA
        claim, we agree with the district court that Piper failed to show that
        the two statements amounted to harmful error. To establish
        harmful error sufficient to reverse an agency’s personnel action, an
        employee must show that error caused substantial harm or
        prejudice to his or her rights. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(r). A harmful error
        is an “[e]rror by the agency in the application of its procedures that
        is likely to have caused the agency to reach a conclusion different
        from the one it would have reached in the absence or cure of the
        error.” Id.
              Importantly, while Piper was placed on the FPP because of
        his performance deficiencies while working on the sonar
        beamformer project, he was not removed because of that. Rather,
USCA11 Case: 22-11367     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 14 of 15

        14                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11367

        Piper was removed because of his performance deficiencies while
        working on the two new assignments in the FPP.
              At any rate, it is not likely that either statement “caused the
        [Navy] to reach a conclusion different from the one it would have
        reached in the absence or cure of the error.” See id.
               As to the first statement—i.e., “Beginning in FY-13, [Piper]
        w[as] tasked with work on the . . . project”—the Navy does not
        dispute that it is false. The parties agree that Piper started working
        on the project in fiscal year 2014, not 2013. However, the record
        also shows that, regardless of when Piper started the sonar
        beamformer project, Crosby was dissatisfied with Piper’s work for
        many reasons: (1) Piper asked for several extensions, (2) Piper
        reported that the project was behind schedule, out of money, and
        overdue, (3) Piper did not submit the technical report for review
        until September 2016 (months after his January 2016 deadline), and
        (4) Crosby thought Piper’s report was unprofessional.
               As for the second statement—i.e., Piper “failed to complete
        the task as assigned”—Piper contends it is false because he finished
        the sonar beamformer project when he submitted the technical
        report. But the statement in the FPP was that Piper “failed to
        complete the task as assigned.” (Emphasis added.) It is undisputed
        that Piper did not complete the task “as assigned” by the Navy:
        (1) Piper asked for many extensions; (2) during his midyear project
        review in fiscal year 2016, Piper reported that the project was
        behind schedule, out of money, and overdue; and (3) Piper did not
        submit the technical report for review until September 2016
USCA11 Case: 22-11367        Document: 19-1         Date Filed: 02/01/2023        Page: 15 of 15

        22-11367                   Opinion of the Court                              15

        (months after his January 2016 deadline). Accordingly, the second
        statement is not false. 6
              For these reasons, the district court did not err in finding
        there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Navy
        properly terminated Piper’s employment under the CSRA.7
               AFFIRMED.

        6 Piper implies that he completed the project “as assigned” because the original

        proposal for the project estimated that the project would take 3 years (not 2
        years) and he completed the project in 2.5 years. Piper also stresses that the
        project was funded through the end of fiscal year 2016. But neither of these
        points changes the fact that January 2016 was the last deadline Piper was given
        to submit the project, and Piper did not do so until September 2016.
        7 The Navy argues Piper failed to raise his CSRA claim at the EEO level and
        therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on that claim. We need
        not decide that exhaustion issue because the district court’s grant of summary
        judgment to the Navy on Piper’s CSRA claim is affirmed here in any event.
        However, we note that Piper’s March 2017 EEO complaint challenged the
        truthfulness of the two statements in the FPP, which is the basis for Piper’s
        CSRA claim.