Tawadrous v. Department of the Treasury ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    __________________________
    SAM B. TAWADROUS,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
    Respondent.
    __________________________
    2012-3028
    __________________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in case no. DA0752110106-I-1.
    __________________________
    Decided: April 10, 2012
    __________________________
    SAM B. TAWADROUS, of Plano, Texas, pro se.
    JANE C. DEMPSEY, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litiga-
    tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
    Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on
    the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General,
    JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and DEBORAH A. BYNUM,
    Assistant Director.
    __________________________
    TAWADROUS   v. TREASURY                                   2
    Before MOORE, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
    CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.
    Sam B. Tawadrous was a Tax Specialist in the Inter-
    nal Revenue Service’s (“IRS’s”) Bank Secrecy Act division.
    In November 2010, the Department of the Treasury
    (“Treasury”) removed Mr. Tawadrous from his position on
    three charges: first, that he had inaccurately stated his
    birth year on numerous official documents; second, that
    during an official investigation he misrepresented under
    oath the fact that he had been indicted and arrested for
    insurance fraud in Collin County, Texas; and third, that
    his entry of a guilty plea to misdemeanor insurance fraud
    demonstrated that he had engaged in conduct unbecom-
    ing an IRS employee. Because of these alleged untruths
    and misconduct, Treasury determined that its trust and
    confidence in Mr. Tawadrous had been adversely affected.
    Mr. Tawadrous appealed his removal to the Merit
    Systems Protection Board (“Board”). The Administrative
    Law Judge affirmed Mr. Tawadrous’s removal. Init.
    Decision, Tawadrous v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. DA-
    0752-11-0106-I-1, 2011 MSPB LEXIS 1569 (M.S.P.B. Mar.
    11, 2011) [hereinafter AJ Op.]. Mr. Tawadrous petitioned
    for Board review, which was denied. Tawadrous v. Dep’t
    of the Treasury, No. DA-0752-11-0106-I-1, slip op.
    (M.S.P.B. Oct. 28, 2011) [hereinafter Bd. Op.]. Mr.
    Tawadrous timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction
    over appeals from final decisions of the Board. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1295
    (a)(4).
    I
    Mr. Tawadrous offers five arguments for why the
    Board’s decision should be reversed. First, he contends
    that the Board committed reversible error in failing to
    take into account the larger context of his situation which,
    3                                  TAWADROUS   v. TREASURY
    he says, demonstrates that removal was unwarranted.
    Second, he argues that he was not actually an employee of
    the IRS at the time of the insurance fraud conviction.
    Third, Mr. Tawadrous argues that the Board did not
    recognize that these same charges were previously lev-
    eled, then withdrawn, by Treasury against Mr.
    Tawadrous, which Mr. Tawadrous suggests amounts to
    double jeopardy. Fourth, Mr. Tawadrous urges that his
    removal was not for the cited reasons, but was in fact
    retaliation. Fifth, he contends that the Treasury wit-
    nesses at his removal hearing gave untruthful testimony.
    We address these in order. Our task is to determine
    whether the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, an
    abuse of discretion, not in accordance with the law, or
    unsupported by substantial evidence. 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (c);
    Sandel v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 
    28 F.3d 1184
    , 1186 (Fed.
    Cir. 1994). If not, we must affirm the final ruling of the
    Board.
    A
    On appeal, Mr. Tawadrous attempts to give context to
    the removal charges and demonstrate that they were
    trumped up. Mr. Tawadrous contends that he is the
    victim of an unfair campaign to have him removed with-
    out justification. He explains the birth date misstate-
    ments by saying that when he first immigrated from
    Egypt, accurate birth records were unavailable. His age
    was therefore estimated for him at an early job, and he
    continued using the estimated birth date for various
    employment documents even after the correct birth date
    was subsequently determined.
    As for the insurance fraud arrest and plea, Mr.
    Tawadrous contends that they arose from a series of
    disputes he had over work done to repair his home’s roof.
    He contends that he never committed any wrongdoing,
    TAWADROUS   v. TREASURY                                   4
    but was victimized by an unethical insurance adjuster.
    While he acknowledges his guilty plea to misdemeanor
    insurance fraud, he contends that this was to save on
    legal fees, and not intended as an admission of culpabil-
    ity. Finally, he says he never intended to conceal this
    run-in with the criminal justice system from Treasury.
    He says he did not understand that the Collin County
    grand jury’s finding of cause for the insurance fraud
    charge against him meant that he had been “indicted.”
    Similarly, he says he did not understand that when he
    voluntarily entered police custody, went through the
    booking procedure, and paid a bond in order to leave, he
    had been “arrested” within the legal meaning of that
    term.
    Though the story Mr. Tawadrous lays out helps ex-
    plain how he reached his present situation, it does not
    present a cognizable basis for reversal. For each of the
    removal charges, Mr. Tawadrous is essentially arguing
    that he had no wrongful intent. As the AJ recognized,
    however, the removal charges do not require wrongful
    intent. AJ Op. at *10 (“The agency has not charged [Mr.
    Tawadrous] with falsification, only inaccuracy, therefore I
    find that a showing of intent to defraud or deceive is not
    required.”). Mr. Tawadrous does not dispute that he
    repeatedly gave an inaccurate birth year on official forms.
    Neither does he dispute that he has been both “arrested”
    and “indicted.” The justifications Mr. Tawadrous offers do
    not undo his misconduct.
    We see no error in the AJ’s treatment of Mr.
    Tawadrous’s argument that his failure to acknowledge
    the arrest and indictment was a mere mistake. The AJ
    noted that Mr. Tawadrous has been in the United States
    for forty years, for many of which he occupied a position of
    trust with the federal government. The AJ found it
    “implausible that [Mr. Tawadrous] would forget to men-
    5                                   TAWADROUS   v. TREASURY
    tion this series of events [the indictment and arrest] to an
    investigator asking if he had ever been indicted or ar-
    rested.” Id. at *15. We see no flaw in that reasoning, or
    in the AJ’s conclusion that preponderant evidence sup-
    ported both of the inaccuracy charges.
    We similarly affirm the AJ’s finding of preponderant
    evidence supporting removal for conduct unbecoming an
    IRS employee. As the AJ noted, this case turns not on the
    fraud charge’s underlying merit (which Mr. Tawadrous
    disputes) but on the fact that Mr. Tawadrous’s conviction
    is now a matter of record. Mr. Tawadrous’s superiors
    were entitled to conclude that his conviction undermined
    both their own trust in him as well as, potentially, that of
    the public in the IRS. The AJ held, and we agree, that in
    such circumstances preponderant evidence supported Mr.
    Tawadrous’s removal.
    B
    Mr. Tawadrous’s next argument stems from a 2008
    attempt by Treasury to remove him on charges different
    from this case. In January of 2008, Treasury removed
    Mr. Tawadrous for alleged deficiencies in his 2001 and
    2002 federal income tax returns. In June of 2009, an
    administrative judge of the MSPB reversed the removal,
    and Treasury returned Mr. Tawadrous to his position. AJ
    Op. at *27 (discussing this previous attempted removal);
    see also Tawadrous v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 
    110 M.S.P.R. 475
     (2009) (discussing the tax charges against Mr.
    Tawadrous).
    Mr. Tawadrous points out that his guilty plea and
    conviction on the fraud charge came in May of 2009, while
    he was still removed from his position and the matter was
    before the Board. He suggests that, because he was
    removed at the time, his conviction cannot be considered
    “conduct unbecoming” an IRS agent. The AJ addressed
    TAWADROUS   v. TREASURY                                   6
    this argument, citing previous opinions of the MSPB that
    “off-duty” misconduct could still support removal. We see
    no error in the AJ’s analysis. Brown v. Dep’t of the Navy,
    
    229 F.3d 1356
    , 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[O]ff-duty conduct
    that is inconsistent with the agency’s mission and that
    undermines confidence in the employee can be sufficient
    to justify the employee’s removal.”).
    C
    Mr. Tawadrous’s third argument concerns a June
    2010 action by Treasury to remove him on the same
    charges that are at issue here. Mr. Tawadrous appealed
    that removal to the MSPB. About a month later, Treas-
    ury rescinded the removal and reinstated Mr. Tawadrous
    with back pay. The MSPB action was later declared moot.
    See Bd. Op. 5; AJ Op. at *27–29; see also Init. Decision,
    Tawadrous v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. DA-0752-10-0493-
    I-1, 2010 MSPB LEXIS 7527, at *3–4 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 21,
    2010) (describing previous removal and reinstatement),
    pet’n for review denied, 2011 MSPB LEXIS 4847 (M.S.P.B.
    Aug. 8, 2011). Months passed. In November 17, 2010,
    Treasury removed Mr. Tawadrous again, on the same
    charges as in the removal of the previous June. It was
    the November 2010 action that resulted in the present
    appeal.
    Mr. Tawadrous contends that it is unlawful for him to
    face two removal actions on the same charges. Like the
    Board, we disagree. This case does not invoke any unlaw-
    ful “double jeopardy.” Stevenson v. United States, 
    155 Ct. Cl. 592
    , 597 (1961) (“‘Double jeopardy’ applies to criminal
    charges and these were in no sense charges of a criminal
    nature. In any event, it is not unusual in cases where a
    procedural error is committed, for the agency to begin
    again and take final valid action.”). In Stevenson, as here,
    the employee was removed from her position on a specific
    7                                  TAWADROUS   v. TREASURY
    charge. The removal was subsequently undone; in Ste-
    venson, it was by order of the Civil Service Commission
    based on a procedural defect, while here it was by Treas-
    ury’s voluntary action. 
    Id. at 594
    . We therefore hold
    that, as in Stevenson, there was no Fifth Amendment
    double jeopardy problem in this case.
    Though acknowledging that federal employment cases
    do not present a double jeopardy issue per se, the Board
    has for a number of years held that, “[w]here an agency
    has imposed disciplinary or adverse action because of an
    employee’s misconduct, it is barred from subsequently
    taking another adverse action for the same reason.”
    Adamek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 
    13 M.S.P.R. 224
    , 226 (1982).
    The roots of this doctrine predate the creation of this
    court. See McGhee v. Johnson, 
    420 F.2d 445
    , 448 (10th
    Cir. 1969) (finding no res judicata problem for federal
    employee whose previous attempted removal was re-
    versed on procedural grounds); Jenkins v. Macy, 
    357 F.2d 62
    , 66–67 (8th Cir. 1966) (finding no “double jeopardy”
    problem for a federal employee whose previous attempted
    removal was reversed on procedural grounds).          But
    Adamek’s rule, by its own terms, does not apply to a case
    where the employee suffered no adverse consequence from
    the previous action. Cf. Jenkins, 
    357 F.2d at 67
     (noting
    that employee was “fully reimbursed for his time lost” in
    the previous removal attempt).
    It is undisputed that the June 2010 removal was re-
    scinded before reaching judgment on the merits, and
    Treasury reinstated Mr. Tawadrous with back pay. With
    no final adjudication of the June 2010 removal, and no
    material harm resulting from it, it presents no obstacle to
    Treasury’s November 2010 effort to remove Mr.
    Tawadrous on the same charges. We therefore see no
    error in the Board’s ruling.
    TAWADROUS   v. TREASURY                                8
    D
    Fourth, Mr. Tawadrous contends that his removal
    was retaliation, stemming either from his return to work
    after the 2008 attempted removal on tax charges, or from
    a 2007 EEO complaint he filed alleging sexual harass-
    ment. The burden of proving this charge is his, however.
    The AJ concluded that Mr. Tawadrous failed to carry that
    burden and, on review of both the record before the Board
    and Mr. Tawadrous’s filings here, we see no error in that
    conclusion. See AJ Op. at *32–33.
    E
    Fifth and finally, Mr. Tawadrous contends that the
    IRS investigators attached to his case gave untruthful
    testimony to the Board. Once again, he has failed to
    present reliable evidence in support of that allegation,
    and we see no error in the Board’s findings based on that
    testimony.
    III
    For the reasons discussed above, the decision of the
    Board stands affirmed.
    AFFIRMED
    COSTS
    No costs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-3028

Judges: Moore, Clevenger, Reyna

Filed Date: 4/10/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024