Court Opinion

ID: 9414612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 07:00:17.563288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.731073
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                       MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
                                        2023 MSPB 21
                              Docket No. CB-7521-21-0017-T-1

                                       Pere J. Jarboe,
                                         Appellant,
                                               v.
                       Department of Health & Human Services,
                                           Agency.
                                        August 1, 2023

           Pere J. Jarboe, Annapolis, Maryland, pro se.

           Elizabeth Mary Hady, Esquire, and Jacqueline Zydeck, Esquire, Chicago,
             Illinois, for the agency.

                                          BEFORE

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

                                  OPINION AND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision , which
     dismissed his complaint under 5 U.S.C. § 7521 for lack of jurisdiction. For the
     reasons set forth below, we DENY the appellant’s petition and AFFIRM the
     initial decision as MODIFIED to correct the jurisdictional analysis and VACATE
     the alternative finding that the complaint is barred by res judicata.

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant is employed by the agency as an administrative law judge
     (ALJ).   Jarboe v. Department of Health and Human Services, MSPB Docket
                                                                                       2

     No. CB-7521-21-0017-T-1, Complaint File (CF), Tab 1 at 1.            On January 19,
     2018, the agency filed a complaint pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7521, asking the Board
     to find good cause to remove the appellant from his ALJ position for his alleged
     failure to properly adjudicate Medicare appeals, supervise his staff, and follow
     supervisory instructions. Department of Health and Human Services v. Jarboe,
     MSPB Docket No. CB-7521-18-0009-T-1, Initial Decision (Feb. 3, 2020). The
     complaint was assigned to a presiding ALJ, who issued an initial decision finding
     good cause for the appellant’s removal. Id. The appellant filed a petition for
     review of that decision, and the agency’s complaint remains pending before the
     Board.   Department of Health and Human Services v. Jarboe, MSPB Docket
     No. CB-7521-18-0009-T-1, Petition for Review File, Tab 3.
¶3         Shortly thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint alleging that he had
     suffered a constructive removal. Department of Health and Human Services v.
     Jarboe, MSPB Docket No. CB-7521-20-0011-T-1, Initial Decision (May 12,
     2020). The appellant subsequently filed a request to withdraw his complaint, and
     the presiding ALJ dismissed the complaint as withdrawn.        Id.    The presiding
     official’s decision in that complaint became final when neither party filed a
     petition for review.
¶4         On July 2, 2021, the appellant filed the instant complaint, again alleging
     that he had been constructively removed.      CF, Tab 1.    The agency moved to
     dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the
     appellant’s constructive removal claim because he remained employed in his ALJ
     position, albeit on administrative leave. CF, Tab 7. In the alternative, the agency
     argued that the complaint was barred under the doctrine of res judicata.        Id.
     The presiding official granted the agency’s motion and dismissed the complaint
     on both grounds identified by the agency.      CF, Tab 9, Initial Decision.    The
     appellant filed the instant petition for review, to which the agency has responded.
     Jarboe v. Department of Health and Human Services, MSPB Docket No. CB-
     7521-21-0017-T-1, Petition for Review File, Tabs 1, 4.
                                                                                      3

                                        ANALYSIS
¶5         Title 5 U.S.C. § 7521(a) provides that an “action” may be taken against
     an ALJ by the employing agency only for good cause established and deter mined
     by the Board on the record, after an opportunity for a hearing.       The actions
     covered by the statute include: (1) a removal; (2) a suspension; (3) a reduction in
     grade; (4) a reduction in pay; and (5) a furlough of 30 days or less. 5 U.S.C.
     § 7521(b). An agency seeking to take such an action against an ALJ may file a
     complaint with the Board under the procedures set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.137.
     If, following an opportunity for a hearing, the Board determines that the agency
     has established good cause to take an action under 5 U.S.C. § 7521(b), the agency
     may take the approved action, though it is not required to do so.       See Social
     Security Administration v. Levinson, 2023 MSPB 20, ¶¶ 37-38 (explaining that
     “when the Board makes a good cause determination, it authorizes but does not
     require the petitioner to act”).
¶6         In the case of In re Doyle, 29 M.S.P.R. 170, 174-75 (1985), the Board held
     that the term “removal,” as used in 5 U.S.C. § 7521, may extend to agency actions
     that impair an ALJ’s qualified judicial independence. Some years later, the Board
     codified the holding of Doyle in a new regulation, following notice and comment
     rulemaking procedures. See 62 Fed. Reg. 48449-01 (Sept. 16, 1997). The new
     regulation provided that an ALJ “who alleges that an agency has interfered with
     the judge’s qualified decisional independence so as to constitute an unauthorized
     action under 5 U.S.C. § 7521 may file a complaint with the Board” under the
     same procedures applicable to an agency complaint. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.142 (1998).
¶7         Subsequently, in Tunik v. Social Security Administration, 93 M.S.P.R. 482
     (2003) (Tunik I), rev’d in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 407 F.3d 1326
     (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Tunik II), the Board determined that Doyle had been incorrectly
     decided. The Board reasoned that, under the Doyle rule, an agency would have to
     first seek the Board’s permission, with the opportunit y for a full evidentiary
     hearing, every time it wants to take actions involving such things as case
                                                                                           4

     processing matters and training requirements.        Id., ¶ 30.   The Board was not
     persuaded that this sort of micromanagement, and the likely slowdown in the
     agency’s work that it would cause, is what Congress intended when it used the
     word “removal” in 5 U.S.C. § 7521. Tunik I, 93 M.S.P.R. 482, ¶ 31. The Board
     concluded that, in order to establish a constructive removal under 5 U.S.C.
     § 7521, the ALJ must have actually been separated or reassigned from the
     position of ALJ and must show that the decision to leave was involuntary under
     the same test for involuntariness applicable to constructive removal claims under
     5 U.S.C. § 7512.     Tunik I, 93 M.S.P.R. 482, ¶ 32.         Because Tunik was not
     separated from his ALJ position when he filed his complaint, the Board dismissed
     his constructive removal claim for lack of jurisdiction. Id. Following Tunik I,
     the Board similarly dismissed other constructive removal complaints filed by
     sitting ALJs. See Schloss v. Social Security Administration, 93 M.S.P.R. 578, ¶ 9
     (2003), rev’d and remanded sub nom. Tunik II, 407 F.3d 1326; Dethloff v. Social
     Security Administration, 93 M.S.P.R. 574, ¶¶ 7-8 (2003), rev’d and remanded sub
     nom. Tunik II, 407 F.3d 1326.
¶8         In a consolidated appeal involving Tunik I and the cases that followed it, the
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s reasoning
     that the plain language of 5 U.S.C. § 7521 “reasonably can be read to apply only
     to cases of actual separation from employment as an ALJ.” Tunik II, 407 F.3d
     at 1339. The court found, however, that the regulation that codified the holding
     of Doyle was controlling, and the Board lacked authority to overrule it by
     adjudication. Tunik II, 407 F.3d at 1341-46. Accordingly, the court reversed and
     remanded the Board decisions that had followed the holding of Tunik I. 1 The
     court observed that its decision did not foreclose the Board from repealing its

     1
       The court vacated Tunik I itself, reasoning that ALJ Tunik had retired before the
     issuance of the Board’s decision, thus rendering it an advisory opinion prohibited under
     5 U.S.C. § 1204(h). Tunik II, 407 F.3d at 1331-32.
                                                                                            5

      regulation adopting the Doyle rule in accordance with the notice and comment
      rule making procedures required under 5 U.S.C. § 553.             Tunik II, 407 F.3d
      at 1346.
¶9          Following the court’s suggestion, the Board proposed an amendment to
      5 C.F.R. § 1201.142 to repeal the Doyle rule, and published the proposed change
      for comments. 70 Fed. Reg. 48081-01 (Aug. 16, 2005); see also 70 Fed. Reg.
      61750-01 (Oct. 26, 2005) (extending the deadline for comments).                   After
      considering the comments received, the Board adopted the rule as proposed,
      thereby overruling Doyle. 71 Fed. Reg. 34231-01 (June 14, 2006); see Mahoney
      v. Donovan, 721 F.3d 633, 637 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting the regulatory repeal of
      Doyle); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.142 (2007). 2          As the Board has not since issued a
      precedential decision acknowledging the regulatory overruling of Doyle, we do so
      now, and hereby clarify that a sitting ALJ may not bring a constructive removal
      complaint under 5 U.S.C. § 7521.
¶10         It is undisputed that the appellant remains employed in his ALJ position.
      Accordingly, we affirm the presiding ALJ’s finding that the Board lacks
      jurisdiction over the appellant’s constructive removal complaint.          Because we
      lack jurisdiction, we vacate the presiding ALJ’s alternative finding that the
      complaint is barred by res judicata.            See Noble v. U.S. Postal Service,
      93 M.S.P.R. 693, ¶ 7 (2003) (holding that the Board must have jurisdiction over a
      case to apply the doctrine of res judicata).

                                             ORDER
¶11         This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this
      appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.113).

      2
       In its revised form, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.142 allows for the filing of a complaint by an ALJ
      “who alleges a constructive removal or other action by an agency in violation of
      5 U.S.C. § 7521[.]”
                                                                                         6

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      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 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:

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.
                                                                                   7

                             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.
      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. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, t hen 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
                                                                                  8

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 th eir 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:
                            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
                                                                                      9

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

      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

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.
                                                                           10

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:

/s/
Jennifer Everling
Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.