Court Opinion

ID: 9373571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:55.930139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.313247
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SONGHUI MARTIN,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         SF-0351-16-0620-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: July 19, 2022
                 Agency.

          THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Bradley R. Marshall, Charleston, South Carolina, for the appellant.

           Douglas W. Frison, Esquire, APO, AP, 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
     dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such
     as this one only in the following circumstances:        the initial decision contains
     erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous

     1
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
     but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
     required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
     precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                         2

     interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to
     the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of
     the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or
     involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of
     the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite
     the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5
     of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).
     After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner
     has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
     review.   Therefore, we DENY the petition for review.          Except as expressly
     MODIFIED to clarify the administrative judge’s jurisdictional analysis , we
     AFFIRM the initial decision.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant, a school nurse at Daegu High School (DHS) in the Korea
     District of the agency’s Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA),
     filed a board appeal alleging that the agency subjected her to a reduction-in-force
     (RIF) action when it eliminated her half-time teaching position, reducing her to a
     half-time school nurse. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tabs 1, 9. In its response to
     her appeal, the agency explained that the appellant occupied a mixed
     teacher/specialist position at DHS and that, based on anticipated enrollment for
     the following school year, its headquarters office eliminated the half-time English
     as a Second Language (ESL) position at DHS that the appellant occupied the
     previous school year. IAF, Tab 4 at 6-7. Consequently, the agency “excessed”
     the appellant from that position in keeping with the procedures set forth in the
     memorandum of understanding on that issue between DoDEA and the union. Id.
     at 87-88, 104-05.
¶3         The administrative judge issued an order explaining the elements and
     burdens of establishing jurisdiction over an appeal of a RIF action. IAF, Tab 8.
                                                                                          3

     In her response, the appellant contended that the agency excessed her even though
     it allowed less tenured and qualified teachers to remain in their full -time
     positions. IAF, Tab 9 at 4. She also claimed that the agency used the RIF as a
     “disguised, procedurally defective adverse action” intended to demote her to a
     part-time position for personal reasons. Id. at 4-5. In reply, the agency argued,
     among other things, that the appellant failed to produce any evidence that it
     conducted a RIF that affected her. IAF, Tab 11.
¶4         Without holding a hearing, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal
     for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellant failed to show that any of the
     conditions necessary to establish jurisdiction existed in this matter. IAF, Tab 14,
     Initial Decision (ID).   In her petition for review, the appellant reiterates the
     arguments she made below, i.e., that the agency used a bogus RIF to demote her
     for personal reasons.    Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 3.         The agency
     responds in opposition. PFR File, Tab 5.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         To be entitled to a jurisdictional hearing over a RIF claim, the appellant
     must make a nonfrivolous allegation that she was subjected to an appealable RIF
     action in the form of a demotion, separation, or furlough for more than 30 days.
     See Harrell v. U.S. Postal Service, 112 M.S.P.R. 492, ¶ 11 (2009); Wolf v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, 87 M.S.P.R. 33, ¶ 7 (2000); 5 C.F.R. § 351.901.
     Here, the appellant claims that she was subjected to an appealable RIF action
     when the agency demoted her from a full-time to a part-time position.             IAF,
     Tabs 1, 9; PFR File, Tab 3.       For the following reasons, we agree with the
     administrative judge’s decision to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

     The appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that the agency subjected
     her to an appealable RIF action in the form of a demotion.
¶6         A demotion is defined in pertinent part as a change of an employee, while
     serving continuously within the same agency, to a lower grade or to a position
                                                                                            4

     with a lower rate of pay. 5 C.F.R. § 210.102(b)(4). Although the appellant may
     have lost half of her hours as a consequence of excessing the ESL teacher
     position that she held, she has not alleged that the agency reduced her rate of pay
     or assigned her to a lower-graded position.            Therefore, she has failed to
     nonfrivolously allege that she was demoted. See Wolf, 87 M.S.P.R. 33, ¶¶ 8-10
     (finding that a “staff adjustment” resulting in a reduction of hours but not in a
     reduction of the rate of pay or grade was not a demotion). Accordingly, we find
     that the appellant has failed to nonfrivolously allege that she was subjected to an
     appealable RIF action. See id., ¶ 11. 2
¶7           In the initial decision, the administrative judge ultimately found that the
     appellant had “not shown that any of the conditions necessary to establish
     jurisdiction in such a case existed here.” ID at 5. However, the appellant at this
     stage was required only to make a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction to
     entitle her to a jurisdictional hearing, at which time she then must establish
     jurisdiction by preponderant evidence. See Garcia v. Department of Homeland
     Security, 437 F.3d 1322, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding that an appellant who
     makes a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction is entitled to a hearing at
     which she must prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence; if she fails
     to prove jurisdiction, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction). Therefore,
     we modify the initial decision to dismiss the appeal based on the appellant’s
     failure to nonfrivolously allege jurisdiction.      E.g., Harrell, 112 M.S.P.R. 492,
     ¶ 11.
¶8           Finally, the appellant raised below and on review claims that the agency
     demoted her based on discrimination and retaliation. IAF, Tabs 1, 9; PFR File,
     Tab 3.      Absent an otherwise appealable action, however, the Board lacks

     2
       To the extent that the appellant is arguing that the Board has jurisdiction because the
     agency reassigned her, an employee reassigned during a RIF may appeal to the Board
     only if the reassignment was a RIF demotion, i.e., a reassignment to a position carrying
     a lower grade or rate of pay. Myers v. Department of the Army, 87 M.S.P.R. 77, ¶ 5
     (2000).
                                                                                           5

     jurisdiction over the appellant’s discrimination and retaliation claims.           E.g.,
     Wren v. Department of the Army, 2 M.S.P.R. 1, 2 (1980) (observing that
     prohibited personnel practices under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) are not an independent
     source of Board jurisdiction), aff’d, 681 F.2d 867, 871-73 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
¶9         Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s petition for review.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
           The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
     Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      You may obtain
     review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of
     your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate
     forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following
     summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not
     provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and
     the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule
     regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of
     this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your
     claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file
     within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your
     chosen forum.
           Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
     below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
     about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
     should contact that forum for more information.

           (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.

     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.
                                                                                          6

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.                 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit    your   petition    to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may vis it 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
                                                                                  7

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 resp ective
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 Employm ent
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
                                                                                      8

      (3) Judicial    review     pursuant    to   the   Whistleblower       Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or
2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial
review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court
of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 4 The court of appeals must receive your
petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                                U.S. Court of Appeals
                                for the Federal Circuit
                               717 Madison Place, N.W.
                               Washington, D.C. 20439

      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.

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.
                                                                              9

      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.