Court Opinion

ID: 9373171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:11.494477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.681600
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ELIZABETH A. SOLOMON,                           DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        CH-0432-15-0471-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: December 15, 2022
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Pearl B. Hale, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for the appellant.

           Richard Todd, Esquire, Arlington Heights, Illinois, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed the agency’s action removing her, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 43, for
     unacceptable performance.      For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the
     appellant’s petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and REMAND 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 nonprecedentia l 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 th e Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                      2

     case to the regional office for further adjudication in accordance with this
     Remand Order.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2           The appellant was employed as an Information Technology (IT) Specialist
     (Network/Customer Support) at a Field Services Center for the Defense Contract
     Management Agency. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 33, Initial Decision (ID)
     at 2.     The appellant received a fully successful performance rating in
     January 2014 for the rating period ending on December 31, 2013. IAF, Tab 8
     at 4, Tab 16 at 6. However, from March through June 2014, the appellant was
     formally counseled on performance-related issues by her first-line supervisor on
     three occasions. IAF, Tab 2 at 6. By letter dated September 17, 2014, the Team
     Chief notified the appellant that she was being placed on a 90-day performance
     improvement plan (PIP) because she was performing at an unacceptable level in
     the following three critical elements of her position: “ IT Asset Management”
     (critical element 1), “First Call Resolution” (critical element 2), and Resolution
     of Level 2 Service Center Tickets (critical element 3). IAF, Tab 8 at 4-9. The
     parties also refer to the critical elements of the appellant’s position as
     “Contributions to Mission Accomplishment” (CTMA). ID at 2. In the PIP, the
     Team Chief specified tasks for the appellant to perform and the minimum
     acceptable accuracy rates that she was required to achieve by the end of the PIP
     to be rated as fully successful. Id. The Team Chief also identified the training
     available to the appellant and outlined the frequency of meetings that would be
     held to monitor her progress during the PIP. Id. at 8-9. The Team Chief advised
     the appellant that failure to reach the fully successful level in any of the three
     critical job elements would result in an adverse action such as reassignm ent,
     demotion, or removal from Federal service. Id. at 4.
¶3           During the 90-day PIP, the appellant and her union representative met with
     her Team Chief on seven occasions. ID at 2; IAF, Tab 7 at 4. When the PIP
                                                                                             3

     ended, the Team Chief determined that the appellant’s performance remained
     unacceptable in all three of the critical elements noted as deficient in her PIP.
     IAF, Tab 7 at 4.      The Team Chief issued a notice of proposed removal in
     February 2015, and the appellant replied. IAF, Tab 6 at 21 -46.             On May 20,
     2015, the Group Chief, acting as the deciding official, sustained the proposed
     action and decided to remove the appellant from employment effective May 29,
     2015. Id. at 16-20. The appellant retired on May 27, 2015, prior to the effective
     date of her removal. ID at 3. The Standard Form 50 documenting the appellant’s
     separation from service stated that she voluntarily retired in lieu o f an impending
     removal for unacceptable performance in critical job elements. IAF, Tab 6 at 15.
¶4         The appellant filed an appeal with the Board, challenging the agency’s
     removal decision and raising affirmative defenses of race discrimination and
     retaliation for engaging in equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. IAF,
     Tab 1, Tab 24 at 1-7.       Although she initially requested a hearing, she later
     withdrew her request. ID at 1. Based on the written record, the administrative
     judge found jurisdiction over this appeal and issued an initial decision denying
     the appellant’s affirmative defenses and affirming the agency’s removal action. 2
     ID at 15, 17-18. In reaching her decision, the administrative judge found that the
     agency proved all of the elements for taking a performance-based action against
     the appellant under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43. ID at 4-13.
¶5         The appellant has filed a petition for review, and the agency has responded
     in opposition to her petition. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 2, 6. The
     appellant also has filed a timely supplemental pleading. PFR File, Tabs 5, 7.

     2
        Because the appellant retired after the agency issued the removal decision and
     references to the removal action remained in the appellant’s official personnel file , the
     administrative judge properly found that the Board has jurisdiction over this appeal. ID
     at 3-4; see Mays v. Department of Transportation, 27 F.3d 1577, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
     (determining that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7701(j), an employee, “stigmatized with an
     adverse final decision reflected in her government employment record, may challenge
     the final removal decision while also opting to retire”).
                                                                                         4

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6        At the time the initial decision was issued, the Board’s case law stated that,
     in a performance-based appeal under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43, an agency must
     establish by substantial evidence the following:      (1) the Office of Personnel
     Management approved its performance appraisal system and any significant
     changes thereto; (2) the agency communicated to the appellant the performance
     standards and critical elements of her position; (3) the appellant’s performance
     standards were valid under 5 U.S.C. § 4302(b)(1) (2012); 3 (4) the agency warned
     the appellant of the inadequacies of her performance du ring the appraisal period
     and gave her a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance;
     and (5) the appellant’s performance remained unacceptable in one or more of the
     critical elements for which she was provided an opportunity to demonstrat e
     acceptable performance.     ID at 4; Lee v. Environmental Protection Agency,
     115 M.S.P.R. 533, ¶ 5 (2010). The administrative judge addressed each of these
     elements in turn and found that the agency carried its burden with respect to all of
     them. ID at 5-13.
¶7        On review, the appellant argues that the agency failed to meet its burden of
     proving that it gave her a reasonable opportunity to dem onstrate acceptable
     performance and that her performance remained unacceptable. 4 PFR File, Tab 2
     at 10-11, 13-15, Tab 7 at 4. She also reasserts her affirmative defense of EEO
     retaliation, arguing that her Team Chief created a hostile work environment by

     3
       During the pendency of this appeal, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018
     redesignated subsection 4302(b) as subsection 4302(c).        Pub. L. No. 115 -91,
     § 1097(d)(1)(A), 131 Stat. 1283, 1619 (2017). Because these amendments post-date the
     adverse employment action at issue here, we refer to the earlier codification. See
     Harris v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 972 F.3d 1307, 1311 n.1 (Fed. Cir.
     2020).
     4
       On review, the appellant does not specifically challenge the administrative judge’s
     findings that the agency established the remaining elements required to prevail in a
     performance-based removal appeal under chapter 43, and we affirm those findings. ID
     at 4-7.
                                                                                          5

     harassing her in reprisal for her EEO activity. 5 PFR File, Tab 2 at 4-15, Tab 7
     at 7. She also argues that the administrative judge failed to acknowledge some of
     her documentary evidence, and she submits several documents on review,
     including one undated chart and other documents that predate the filing of her
     appeal. 6 PFR File, Tab 2 at 16-33, Tab 7 at 9-13. The appellant also makes
     several arguments related to her performance prior to being placed on the PIP.
     She asserts that the March 2014 counseling letter, issued 6 months prior to her
     placement on a PIP, included items that did not relate to the critical elements of
     her position and violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) because it
     did not provide a 90-day minimum evaluation period in the 2014 rating year.
     PFR File, Tab 2 at 13, Tab 7 at 4, 7.        She also asserts that the March 2014
     counseling letter improperly referred to items from the 2013 calendar year, for
     which she received a fully successful rating, thereby violating the CBA ’s
     requirement to “warn employees of serious performance deficiencies when they
     occur.” PFR File, Tab 2 at 13.
¶8         For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the administrative judge’s findings
     that the agency met its burden to prove that the appellant had a reasonable
     opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance and that her performance

     5
       Arguably, some of the appellant’s arguments on review implicate her claim of race
     discrimination, but we find her arguments insufficient to disturb the administrative
     judge’s finding that she failed to meet her burden of proof on this issue. PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 4, 11; ID at 13-15.
     6
       To the extent that some of the documents submitted by the appellant are already part
     of the record, we find that they are not new and they do not warrant disturbing the
     initial decision. See Meier v. Department of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980)
     (holding that evidence that is already a part of the record is not new). Moreover, t he
     appellant has not shown that the documents that she submits for the first time on
     review, or the information contained in those documents, were unavailable before the
     record closed despite her due diligence. Therefore, the Board will not consider this
     evidence. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980) (holding
     that, under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will not consider evidence submitted for the
     first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before
     the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence).
                                                                                        6

      remained unacceptable, and that the appellant failed to meet her burden to prove
      her affirmative defense of retaliation.     We remand this appeal for further
      adjudication related to the appellant’s pre-PIP performance in accordance with
      recent case law, as set forth herein.

      The agency afforded the appellant a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate
      acceptable performance.
¶9          In determining whether an agency has afforded an employee a reasonable
      opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance, relevant factors include the
      nature of the duties and responsibilities of the employee’s position, the
      performance deficiencies involved, and the amount of time that is sufficient to
      enable the employee to demonstrate acceptable performance. Lee, 115 M.S.P.R.
      533, ¶ 32. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the administrative
      judge’s finding that the agency proffered substantial evidence that it afforded the
      appellant a reasonable opportunity during the PIP to improve in the three critical
      elements at issue. ID at 7-11.
¶10         The appellant was an IT Specialist who provided customer service for the
      agency’s field services office. ID at 1. The administrative judge noted that the
      appellant’s position description referenced, among other things, providing
      technical guidance and support to individuals within the organiza tion, resolving
      user-reported problems and tickets, and ensuring overall IT infrastructure
      availability and efficiency. ID at 7; IAF, Tab 8 at 17-24. The administrative
      judge found that the agency identified specific performance deficiencies and
      required that the appellant improve her performance during the PIP in three key
      areas, consisting of her IT management, her first-call resolution, and her
      resolution of Level 2 service center tickets. ID at 7. The administrative judge
      also found that the Team Chief provided the appellant with an extended period to
      show improvement and held bi-weekly meetings during the PIP, giving the
      appellant feedback on her performance. ID at 7-8. The record contains the Team
      Chief’s contemporaneous meeting notes documenting the appellant’s continued
                                                                                             7

      performance deficiencies during the PIP. ID at 7-8; IAF, Tab 7 at 4-5, 21, 40-41,
      80.
¶11         Though not clear, the appellant may be asserting on review that she did not
      have a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performa nce because the
      PIP imposed requirements for being rated fully successful that were not based on
      the critical elements of her position. 7 PFR File, Tab 7 at 5-7. The administrative
      judge found that the appellant failed the PIP, which required the appellant to
      accurately complete the information technology equipment audit (CMTA # 1),
      reach the 70% first call resolution rate (CMTA # 2), and resolve 65% of Level 2
      tickets within 36 hours (CMTA #3). ID at 11-12. These objective standards are
      contained in the appellant’s performance plan, and thus we find that the PIP did
      not impose requirements for being rated fully successful that were not based on
      the critical elements of her position.       Compare IAF, Tab 8 at 4-9, with id.
      at 15-16. The appellant also argues on review that she was denied a reasonable
      opportunity to improve because of the hostile work environment that existed
      before and during the PIP. PFR File, Tab 2 at 10-11. In support of her argument,
      she reasserts the allegations she made to the administrative judge that she was
      followed by coworkers and that they took pictures of her cubicle and emailed
      them to her Team Chief. Id. at 7, 10-11. She contends that a team leader yelled
      at her and banged on her desk, but her supervisor took no action against the
      contractor when informed of the incident. Id. at 5. She asserts that her Team
      Chief treated her differently by instructing her not to interact with a newly hired

      7
        The appellant alleges that “items placed in the counseling letter were greater than the
      fully successful level.” PFR File, Tab 7 at 7. To the extent the appellant is asserting
      that the March 2014 counseling letter imposed requirements for being rated fully
      successful that were not based on the critical elements of her position, we find that the
      appellant’s removal was based on the September 2014 PIP, not the March 2014
      counseling letter. Nonetheless, due to the recent issuance of Santos v. National
      Aeronautics & Space Administration, 990 F.3d 1355, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2021), we have
      remanded this appeal for the administrative judge to consider the appellant’s assertions
      regarding her pre-PIP performance. Infra ¶¶ 16, 22.
                                                                                             8

      contractor seated next to her and that the contractor stalked her, listened to her
      conversations, and informed a team leader on another floor about the substance of
      those conversations. Id. at 6. She contends that her Team Chief “consigned” the
      contractor’s behavior, which created a hostile work environment. Id. She further
      contends that her Team Chief provided her with negative feedback, refused to
      sign her continuing education certificate, sent her harassing emails, and yelled at
      her and used derogatory and harassing language consisting of slurs and offensive
      comments. 8 Id. at 7, 10-12.
¶12            The   administrative    judge   considered   the   appellant’s   hostile   work
      environment argument, including that her supervisor spoke to her frequently in a
      rude and disrespectful manner and that he enlisted the appellant’s coworkers to
      spy on her and take photographs of her cubicle. ID at 9-11; IAF, Tab 1 at 5-7,
      Tab 30 at 11. However, he found that the appellant failed to explain adequately
      the nature, timing, and circumstances of her coworkers’ alleged harassment or
      how it related to her ability to improve during the PIP.             ID at 9-11.     The
      administrative judge also found no evidence that the feedback the appellant
      received from her Team Chief during the PIP was inaccurate or made with any
      particular animus or that there was any evidence of harassment that impeded her
      ability to improve.     Id.     The appellant offers no new and material previously
      unavailable evidence to the contrary on review.               Having considered the
      appellant’s arguments on review, we find no basis to disturb t he administrative
      judge’s finding that the agency proved by substantial evidence that the appellant
      received a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance.             ID
      at 11.

      8
        The appellant asserts that this harassing conduct formed the basis for her EEO
      complaint. PFR File, Tab 2 at 11.
                                                                                       9

      The agency proved by substantial evidence that the appellant’s performa nce
      remained unacceptable in the critical elements for which she was given an
      opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance.
¶13         We are unconvinced by the appellant’s argument on review that she met the
      fully successful criteria for all three of her CTMAs and that the agency failed to
      provide documentation to support removing her for performance deficiencies.
      PFR File, Tab 7 at 5-7. The administrative judge considered and rejected these
      same arguments in the initial decision. ID at 9. The administrative judge found
      that the record contains contemporaneous notes and supporting documentation
      from the Team Chief’s bi-weekly meetings with the appellant during the PIP,
      which document her continued inability to properly audit IT equipment, process
      password requests in the required manner, and assist customers with their IT
      issues before closing their tickets as resolved. ID at 8 -9.
¶14         The record evidence shows that the appellant failed to reach the fully
      successful performance level by the end of her 90 -day PIP in part because she
      was unable to properly audit IT equipment despite having at least three attempts
      to do so, and she made multiple audit errors documented by the agency.         ID
      at 8-9; IAF, Tab 7 at 4-20.        After reviewing the claims contained in the
      appellant’s reply, the administrative judge found nothing to rebut the agency’s
      evidence regarding her performance and no indication that she performed at the
      fully successful level as required. ID at 12. We discern no reason to disturb the
      administrative judge’s finding that the agency proved by substantial evidence that
      the appellant failed to reach the fully successful performance level by the end of
      her 90-day PIP. ID at 8-13.
¶15         Considering the record as a whole, the administrative judge concluded that
      a reasonable person would accept the agency’s evidence as adequate to support a
      conclusion that the appellant’s performance was unacceptable and, therefore, the
      agency met its burden of proving that her performance in at least one critical job
      element was unacceptable. ID at 13. On review, the appellant asserts that she
                                                                                10

received an annual performance rating on January 29, 2015, rating her fully
successful for the period of January 1 to December 31, 2014. PFR File, Tab 7
at 4-5. The appellant has failed to cite specific evidence to support her argument.
See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(b) (stating that a petition for review must be supported
by specific references to the record); see also Tines v. Department of the Air
Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92 (1992) (finding that a petition for review must contain
sufficient specificity to enable the Board to ascertain whether there is a more
serious evidentiary challenge justifying a complete review of the record).
Moreover, in response to the appellant’s proposed removal, the appellant’s
representative conceded that the agency withdrew the annu al appraisal that she
allegedly received on January 29, 2015.     IAF, Tab 6 at 32.    Accordingly, w e
discern no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s finding that the agency
proved by substantial evidence that the appellant failed to reach the fully
successful performance level by the end of her 90-day PIP on this basis.        ID
at 8-13. We find that the appellant’s remaining arguments on review amount to
mere disagreement with the well-reasoned, record-based findings of the
administrative judge. See Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 105-06
(1997) (finding no reason to disturb the administrative judge ’s findings when she
considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made
reasoned conclusions); Broughton v. Department of Health & Human Services,
33 M.S.P.R. 357, 359 (1987) (same). Finally, although the appellant argues that
the administrative judge failed to acknowledge some of her documentary
evidence, an administrative judge’s failure to mention all of the evidence of
record does not mean that she did not consider it in reaching her decision. See
Marques v. Department of Health & Human Services, 22 M.S.P.R. 129, 132
(1984), aff’d, 776 F.2d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Table).
                                                                                     11

      Remand is required in light of recent case law to make findings as to the
      appellant’s performance prior to the implementation of the PIP.
¶16        At the time the initial decision was issued, the Board had held that an
      agency need not prove unacceptable performance prior to the PIP . See Wright v.
      Department of Labor, 82 M.S.P.R. 186, ¶ 12 (1999); Brown v. Veterans
      Administration, 44 M.S.P.R. 635, 640-41 (1990). However, during the pendency
      of the petition for review in this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
      Circuit issued Santos v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration , 990 F.3d
      1355, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which held that, in addition to the five elements
      of the agency’s case set forth in paragraph 6, the agency must also justify the
      institution of a PIP by proving by substantial evidence that the employee’s
      performance was unacceptable prior to the PIP. The Federal Circuit’s decision in
      Santos applies to all pending cases, including this one, regardless of when the
      events took place. Lee v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 11, ¶ 16.
      The appellant makes several assertions regarding her pre-PIP performance on
      review, including that her performance ratings were fully successful before the
      PIP and that the March 2014 counseling letter, issued 6 months prior to the PIP,
      improperly included items from the 2013 calendar year, for which she received a
      fully successful rating, and failed to provide a 90-day minimum evaluation period
      in the 2014 rating year. PFR File, Tab 2 at 4, 13-14. In light of Santos, we
      remand the appeal to give the parties the opportunity to present additi onal
      evidence as to these assertions and as to whether the appellant’s performance
      during the period leading up to the PIP was unacceptable in one or more critical
      elements. See Lee, 2022 MSPB 11, ¶¶ 15-17.

      The appellant failed to meet her burden of proving her affirmative defense of
      EEO retaliation.
¶17        On review, the appellant challenges the administrative judge’s finding that
      she failed to prove her affirmative defense of retaliation for EEO activity. PFR
      File, Tab 2 at 8-18; ID at 17. In analyzing the appellant’s retaliation claim, the
                                                                                       12

      administrative judge applied the standard set forth in Warren v. Department of the
      Army, 804 F.2d 654, 656-58 (Fed. Cir. 1986), which requires, among other things,
      that the appellant establish a “genuine nexus” between the alleged retaliation and
      the contested employment action. ID at 15. However, the Warren standard does
      not apply to claims of retaliation for Title VII EEO activity. Rather, to prove
      such a claim, an appellant must show that she engaged in protected activity and
      that the activity was a motivating factor in the agency’s action. Pridgen v. Office
      of Management & Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 21-22, 30. To obtain full relief
      under the statute, including reinstatement, back pay, and damages, an appellant
      must show that retaliation was a “but-for” cause of the agency’s action. Id., ¶ 22.
      An appellant may prove a claim of retaliation under Title VII through d irect
      evidence, circumstantial evidence, or some combination of the two.        Id., ¶ 24.
      Nevertheless, we find that that administrative judge’s application of the Warren
      standard does not constitute reversible error because the evidence of record is
      insufficient to support the appellant’s claim, even analyzed under the correct
      evidentiary standards and framework. See Panter v. Department of the Air Force,
      22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (holding that an adjudicatory error that is not
      prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis to reverse an initial
      decision).
¶18        In her initial decision, the administrative judge assumed that the appellant
      engaged in protected activity based on her allegation that she filed an EEO
      complaint against her Team Chief in February 2014 and that the Team Chi ef
      knew of her complaint.      ID at 16.    The administrative judge also assumed
      arguendo that the appellant’s Team Chief may have had strong motive to retaliate
      against her and that the PIP could have been retaliation for the appellant’s alleged
      EEO activity.   Id.   The administrative judge noted the possibility of a slight
      retaliatory motive by the Group Chief based on the inference that the appellant’s
      alleged EEO complaint may have reflected negatively on the Group Chief’s area
      of management, although there is no indication that he was named in the
                                                                                      13

      appellant’s EEO complaint. Id. The administrative judge nonetheless found that
      the appellant failed to prove that reprisal for her EEO activity was a motivating
      factor in her removal, having weighed the strength of the agency’s motive to
      retaliate against the strong documentation that the agency provided in support of
      the removal action and the lack of evidence produced by the appellant relating to
      her claim of EEO retaliation. ID at 16-17. She found no pretext or inaccuracies
      in the documentation provided by the agency in support of the PIP or the removal
      action, no evidence that the appellant was treated differently than employees who
      did not participate in EEO activity, and no evidence that her EEO activity played
      any role in the agency’s decision to put her on a PIP or remove her. Id.
¶19        On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in
      finding that she failed to prove her claims of EEO retaliation and a hostile work
      environment. PFR File, Tab 2 at 4-15. The appellant reasserts her argument that
      she filed an EEO discrimination complaint in February 2014 against her Team
      Chief for harassment and that he was aware of her EEO activity when he issued
      her a performance counseling letter in March 2014.       Id. at 4.   The appellant
      characterizes the timing of the performance counseling letter as suspicious
      because she received a fully successful performance rating 2 months earlier . Id.
¶20        The appellant also argues that her Team Chief harassed her by creating a
      hostile work environment and placing her on a PIP designed to make her fail in
      retaliation for her EEO activity. Id. at 4-14. The administrative judge noted the
      appellant’s disagreement with the letter assessing her alleged performance
      deficiencies and stating the tasks that she needed to complete to improve her
      performance. ID at 6. The administrative judge found that the Team Chief had
      bi-weekly meetings with the appellant during the PIP and discussed her
      performance standards as stated in the PIP notification. Id. The administrative
      judge also found that, during the initial meeting with the Team Chief, the parties
      agreed to modify various dates and percentages required to be rated fully
                                                                                          14

      successful and that none of the changes that were made altered the requirements
      to the appellant’s detriment. Id.
¶21         Based on our review of the record, we find that the appellant failed to show
      by preponderant evidence that retaliation for her EEO activity was a motivating
      factor in the contested personnel action. See Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 33. We
      agree with the administrative judge’s finding that the appellant produced
      insufficient evidence to support her retaliation claim. ID at 16. Moreover, we
      discern no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s findings that the deciding
      official performed his duties conscientiously and that there is no evidence that the
      appellant’s Team Chief had any particular animus toward her or made inaccurate
      comments and criticisms about her job performance.                ID at 9, 15, 17.
      Accordingly, we find that the appellant failed to prove her affirmative defense of
      retaliation for protected EEO activity. 9

                                             ORDER
¶22         For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
      for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.                     The
      administrative judge shall accept evidence and argument on the issue of the
      appellant’s pre-PIP performance and hold a supplemental hearing if request ed.
      The administrative judge shall then issue a new initial decision consistent with
      Santos and make explicit findings as to the appellant’s assertions regarding her
      pre-PIP performance contained in paragraph 16 of this Remand Order.             If the
      agency makes the additional showing required under Santos on remand, the
      administrative judge may incorporate the prior findings on the other elements of
      the agency’s case and the appellant’s affirmative defense in the remand initial
      decision. However, regardless of whether the agency meets its burden, if the

      9
        Because we find that the appellant failed to prove that her EEO activity was a
      motivating factor in this removal, we do not reach the question of whether her activity
      was a “but-for” cause of the removal action. See Pridgen, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 20-22,
      29-33.
                                                                                   15

argument or evidence on remand regarding the appellant’s pre -PIP performance
affects the administrative judge’s analysis as to any finding in the initial decision,
or any finding contained in this Remand Order, the administrative judge shall
address such argument or evidence in the remand initial decision.

FOR THE BOARD:                                     /s/ for
                                           Jennifer Everling
                                           Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.