Court Opinion

ID: 9373650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:29.653784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.815481
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     IRENE U. AKINPELU,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DA-0714-17-0474-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: June 9, 2022
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Irene U. Akinpelu, Dallas, Texas, pro se.

           Brittany Brignac, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the agency.

           Tijuana D. Griffin, Little Rock, Arkansas, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     sustained her removal. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the petition

     1
      A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has d etermined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 decisi ons. 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

     for review, REVERSE the initial decision, and DO NOT SUSTAIN the
     appellant’s removal.

                                        BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant was a GS-05 Nursing Assistant with the Mental Health
     Service of the agency’s North Texas Health Care System.             Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 5 at 8, 23. On July 25, 2017, the agency issued a notice proposing to
     remove her for patient abuse under the authority of the Department of Veterans
     Affairs   Accountability     and    Whistleblower      Protection     Act    of   2017
     (VA Accountability Act), Pub. L. No. 115-41, § 202(a), 131 Stat. 862, 869-73
     (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. § 714), which was enacted on June 23, 2017.
     Id. at 23-25. In support of the charge, the agency alleged that on April 19, 2017,
     the appellant agitated a patient by speaking to him very loudly, raised her hand to
     the patient and blocked his walking path, moved briskly to the left while facing
     the patient, and then hit the patient in the side of his body with the back of her
     fisted right hand as she walked past him. Id. at 23. After the appellant replied to
     the proposal orally and in writing, id. at 16-22, the deciding official issued a
     decision sustaining the charge and finding removal warranted, id. at 11-14.
     The appellant was removed effective August 11, 2017. Id. at 8.
¶3         The appellant filed a Board appeal challenging her removal. IAF, Tab 1.
     She did not raise any affirmative defenses.              Following a hearing, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming the removal based on her
     finding that the agency proved its charge by substantial evidence. 2 IAF, Tab 16,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 7. The appellant has filed a petition for review of the

     2
       In a Board appeal of an action taken pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 714, the agency bears the
     burden of proving its charge by substantial evidence, which is a lower standard of proof
     than preponderance of the evidence, i.e., the burden of proof in adverse actions taken
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7513. 38 U.S.C. § 714(d)(2)(A), (3)(B); 5 U.S.C.
     § 7701(c)(1)(B); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(p), (q). If an agency meets this standard,
     neither the administrative judge nor the Board may mitigate the penalty. 38 U.S.C.
     § 714(d)(2)(B), (3)(C).
                                                                                           3

     initial decision, and the agency has filed a response in opposition to the petition.
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 4. 3

                                          ANALYSIS
¶4         After the administrative judge issued the initial decision in this appeal, the
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sayers v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, 954 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In that case, the
     agency had removed Dr. Sayers from his Chief Pharmacist position under
     38 U.S.C. § 714 for conduct that took place before the law’s enactment.
     Id. at 1372-73. The court found that section 714 cannot be applied retroactively
     because Congress did not authorize its retroactive application, and the statute’s
     lowered substantial evidence standard of proof and elimination of the Board’s
     authority to mitigate the penalty detrimentally affected Dr. Sayers’s property
     right to continued employment.          Id. at 1372, 1374, 1380-82.         The court
     acknowledged the agency’s argument that the notice of proposed removal was not
     issued until after the enactment of the VA Accountability Act, but it determined
     that “[s]ection 714’s impermissible retroactive effect on Dr. Sayer’s substantive
     employment right is not eliminated by the prospective application of § 714’s
     procedures.” Id. at 1381. The court reasoned that Dr. Sayers “had a right to the
     substantive civil service protections from improper or unjustified removal in
     effect at the time of his alleged misconduct,” and that thos e protections remained
     terms of his employment until Congress altered those terms when it passed the

     3
       With her petition for review, the appellant submits an investigative report issued by
     agency police regarding the April 19, 2017 incident. PFR File, Tab 1 at 8 -10.
     Because this document is in the record below, IAF, Tab 14 at 1-3, it does not constitute
     new evidence, and we have not considered it. See Meier v. Department of the Interior,
     3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980).
     On January 30, 2018, the appellant filed a reply to the agency’s December 27, 2017
     response to her petition for review. PFR File, Tab 5. This reply is untimely and we
     have not considered it. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e) (providing that any reply to a
     response to a petition for review must be filed within 10 days after the date of service
     of the response to the petition for review).
                                                                                          4

     VA Accountability Act. Id. Thus, the court vacated Dr. Sayers’s removal. Id.
     at 1382.
¶5         Here, as in Sayers, the agency removed the appellant under the VA
     Accountability Act for conduct that predated its June 23, 2017 enactment.
     IAF, Tab 5 at 11, 23. The agency contends on review that the applicability of
     38 U.S.C. § 714 does not depend on the dates of the charged conduct and that
     section 714 applies because the notice of proposed removal was issued following
     the passage of the VA Accountability Act. PFR File, Tab 4 at 7. However, the
     date of the notice of proposed removal is not dispositive in determining
     section 714’s retroactive effect. Rather, pursuant to Sayers, 38 U.S.C. § 714 may
     not be applied to conduct that predates the passage of the VA Accountability Act.
     Sayers, 954 F.3d at 1380. Therefore, the agency’s charge is not sustained and the
     appellant’s removal must be reversed. 4 See id. at 1380-82.

                                            ORDER
¶6         We ORDER the agency to cancel the removal action and restore the
     appellant effective August 11, 2017. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the
     Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no
     later than 20 days after the date of this decision.
¶7         We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back
     pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel
     Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this
     decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s
     efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to

     4
       The reversal of the appellant’s removal on the grounds that 38 U.S.C. § 714 cannot be
     applied retroactively does not preclude the agency from reinitiating a removal action
     against the appellant for the same conduct under chapter 75.            Cf. Jenkins v.
     Environmental Protection Agency, 118 M.S.P.R. 161, ¶ 14 (2012) (holding that the
     reversal of the appellant’s removal on due process grounds did not preclude the agency
     from reinitiating the action based on the same charges in a constitutionally correct
     proceeding).
                                                                                          5

      provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the
      Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due,
      and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed
      amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision.
¶8          We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing
      when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has
      taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask
      the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶9          No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully
      carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement
      with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant
      believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition
      should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not
      fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of
      any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
¶10         For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
      Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and
      Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation
      necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision
      are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all
      documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the
      Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that pa yment can be
      made within the 60-day period set forth above.

                      NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                            YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                           ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
            You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
      fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at title 5 of
      the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
                                                                                      6

regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
the initial decision on your appeal.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      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 s uch
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 decisi on, 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.

      (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

5
  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

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
receive this decision.      5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017).                 If you have a
                                                                                  8

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:
                         Office of Federal Operations
                  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                              131 M Street, N.E.
                                Suite 5SW12G
                          Washington, D.C. 20507
                                                                                      9

      (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. 6 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 Fede ral
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.

6
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of compet ent 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

      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:                                    /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
                                 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
                                           Civilian Pay Operations

                          DFAS BACK PAY CHECKLIST
The following documentation is required by DFAS Civilian Pay to compute and pay back pay
pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805. Human resources/local payroll offices should use the following
checklist to ensure a request for payment of back pay is complete. Missing documentation may
substantially delay the processing of a back pay award. More information may be found at:
https://wss.apan.org/public/DFASPayroll/Back%20Pay%20Process/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NOTE: Attorneys’ fees or other non-wage payments (such as damages) are paid by
vendor pay, not DFAS Civilian Pay.

☐ 1) Submit a “SETTLEMENT INQUIRY - Submission” Remedy Ticket. Please identify the
       specific dates of the back pay period within the ticket comments.

Attach the following documentation to the Remedy Ticket, or provide a statement in the ticket
comments as to why the documentation is not applicable:

☐ 2) Settlement agreement, administrative determination, arbitrator award, or order.

☐ 3) Signed and completed “Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay”.

☐ 4) All required SF50s (new, corrected, or canceled). ***Do not process online SF50s
       until notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 5) Certified timecards/corrected timecards. ***Do not process online timecards until
       notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 6) All relevant benefit election forms (e.g. TSP, FEHB, etc.).

☐ 7) Outside earnings documentation. Include record of all amounts earned by the employee
       in a job undertaken during the back pay period to replace federal employment.
       Documentation includes W-2 or 1099 statements, payroll documents/records, etc. Also,
       include record of any unemployment earning statements, workers’ compensation,
       CSRS/FERS retirement annuity payments, refunds of CSRS/FERS employee premiums,
       or severance pay received by the employee upon separation.

Lump Sum Leave Payment Debts: When a separation is later reversed, there is no authority
under 5 U.S.C. § 5551 for the reinstated employee to keep the lump sum annual leave payment
they may have received. The payroll office must collect the debt from the back pay award. The
annual leave will be restored to the employee. Annual leave that exceeds the annual leave
ceiling will be restored to a separate leave account pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805(g).
NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES
Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process
payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as ordered by
the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts.
1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise information
   describing what to do in accordance with decision.
2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration:
       a.   Employee name and social security number.
       b.   Detailed explanation of request.
       c.   Valid agency accounting.
       d.   Authorized signature (Table 63).
       e.   If interest is to be included.
       f.   Check mailing address.
       g.   Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached.
       h.   Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to be
            collected (if applicable).
Attachments to AD-343
1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday
   Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement (if applicable).
2. Copies of SF-50s (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and amounts.
3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency.
4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address to
   return monies.
5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)
6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of the
   type of leave to be charged and number of hours.
7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual Leave
   to be paid.
NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay Period and
required data in 1-7 above.
The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump Sum
Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.)
       a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.
       b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided.
       c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable.
If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s
Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.