King v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 248 F. App'x 192 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    2007-3225
    DIANE KING,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
    Respondent.
    Diane King, of Deatsville, Alabama, pro se.
    Maame A.F. Ewusi-Mensah, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
    Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With
    him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
    Director, and Kathryn A. Bleecker, Assistant Director.
    Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board
    NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    2007-3225
    DIANE KING,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
    Respondent.
    ___________________________
    DECIDED: September 14, 2007
    ___________________________
    Before RADER, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and DYK, Circuit
    Judge.
    PER CURIAM.
    Diane King (“King”) appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board (“Board”) in AT-1221-06-0781-W-1, denying her request for corrective action
    under the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”) after she was suspended from her
    position for one day. Because we conclude that the various errors alleged by King are
    without merit, we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    King is a Medical Technologist, GS-09, at the VA Health Care System in
    Alabama. On November 10, 2005, the VA proposed to reprimand King for making false
    statements about a co-worker. According to King’s own admission, on November 15,
    2005, she was off-duty but on the VA’s East Campus in Tuskegee for a doctor’s
    appointment and went into the canteen to do Christmas shopping. She approached a
    supervisor, who said hello, and King responded: “You know, I didn’t get my law degree
    out of a cracker jack box. You’re going to wish you hadn’t started this.” Based on this
    conduct, the agency suspended her for one day for “disrespectful conduct.”          King
    claimed that she was disciplined for protected whistleblowing, alleging that she had
    engaged in protected whistleblowing in making the statements about the other
    employee for which the earlier reprimand was proposed. She exhausted her remedies
    with the Office of Special Counsel and then filed an Individual Right of Action with the
    Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). After a hearing, the Administrative Judge
    issued an initial decision denying corrective action, which became the final decision of
    the Board upon denial of review. King timely appealed to this court, and we have
    jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1295
    (a)(9).
    DISCUSSION
    The Board’s decision must be affirmed unless it is found to be arbitrary,
    capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained
    without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation; or unsupported by substantial
    evidence. 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (c) (2000); Yates v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 
    145 F.3d 1480
    ,
    1483 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
    Even assuming, solely for purposes of this appeal, that King made a protected
    disclosure and that the protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel
    action, the agency can sustain the discipline if it can show by clear and convincing
    evidence that it would have taken the action in the absence of the protected disclosure.
    
    5 U.S.C. § 1221
    (e)(2). We conclude that the Board’s finding that the agency would
    have taken its action regardless of the protected alleged activity was supported by clear
    2007-3225
    2
    and convincing substantial evidence.            As found by the Board, the evidence of
    disrespectful conduct was both “strong” and “undisputed” and the agency had imposed
    far more serious discipline on “similarly situated individuals,” whom the Board found
    were not whistleblowers.
    While King argues that the suspension was improper because she was off-duty
    at the time of the incident, adverse personnel actions may be taken for off-duty conduct
    if there is a nexus between the conduct and the “efficiency of the service.” Allred v.
    Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 
    786 F.2d 1128
    , 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We conclude
    that the record provides substantial evidence of a nexus, including the fact that the
    incident happened at her employer’s facility and involved a supervisor.         King also
    argues that her statements were protected by the First Amendment, but the government
    may restrict speech if it “reasonably believe[] [it] would disrupt the office, undermine [a
    supervisor’s] authority, and destroy close working relationships.” Connick v. Myers, 
    461 U.S. 138
    , 154 (1983).        The record discloses substantial evidence to support a
    conclusion that this is such a situation.
    King makes a variety of other arguments, each of which we have considered
    carefully and find to be without merit. We therefore affirm.
    No costs.
    2007-3225
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2007-3225

Citation Numbers: 248 F. App'x 192

Judges: Clevenger, Dyk, Per Curiam, Rader

Filed Date: 9/14/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024