Case: 23-1114 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 08/16/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOSEPH C. ANORUO,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent
______________________
2023-1114
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF-1221-22-0181-W-1.
______________________
Decided: August 16, 2023
______________________
JOSEPH ANORUO, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
LAURA OFFENBACHER ARADI, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before CHEN, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1114 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 08/16/2023
2 ANORUO v. DVA
PER CURIAM.
Dr. Joseph C. Anoruo seeks review of the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board’s (“MSPB” or “Board”) final decision
denying his request for corrective action. We affirm the
Board’s decision.
I
Beginning in 2003, Dr. Anoruo has worked at the Vet-
erans Affairs Southern Nevada Healthcare System
(“VASNHS”) as a clinical pharmacist. After the VA issued
a mandate to increase efficiency in pharmacy operations,
some outlying clinic pharmacies were closed, resulting in
Dr. Anoruo being reassigned as an outpatient pharmacist
in Las Vegas. In 2019, Dr. Anoruo filed a complaint with
the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) challenging the VA’s
decision to close the outlying clinic pharmacies and alleg-
ing that certain policies relating to the mail order prescrip-
tion system were delaying patient access to prescription
medications, destroying thousands of dollars of prescrip-
tion drugs, and causing the VA to expend significant re-
sources to handle returned prescriptions. The VA
investigated and substantiated Dr. Anoruo’s allegations re-
lating to the mail order prescription system and ultimately
adopted changes relating to the mailing protocol for certain
narcotics.
One of Dr. Anoruo’s responsibilities as an outpatient
pharmacist is to process pending prescriptions. Pharma-
cists are sometimes placed on “pending” rotations, during
which the processing of pending prescriptions is their pri-
mary duty. Often, pharmacists on a “pending” rotation are
called to cover other vacant rotations. Regardless of the
type of rotation, pharmacists are expected to process pend-
ing prescriptions whenever they have time to do so.
Dr. Anoruo repeatedly failed to meet the performance
standard for processing pending prescriptions (Dispens-
ing/Drug Distribution Functions), an assessment which is
Case: 23-1114 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 08/16/2023
ANORUO v. DVA 3
measured by “dividing the total number of pending pre-
scriptions processed by the pharmacist during the fiscal
year by the total number of days the pharmacist worked
during the fiscal year.” S.A. 4-5. 1 In 2018, successful per-
formance required processing 125 pending prescriptions
per day. That year, Dr. Anoruo processed an average of 76
prescriptions per day. In 2019 and 2020, successful perfor-
mance required processing 120 prescriptions each day, but
Dr. Anoruo only processed 100 and 104, respectively. Dr.
Anoruo also failed to be rated as successful on another per-
formance standard: Clinical Functions. In 2020, success
required 4.8 notes per day, but Dr. Anoruo only completed
4.74 notes per day.
Starting in 2020, as a consequence of the Covid-19 pan-
demic, VASNHS permitted pharmacists to work remotely
on some rotations. However, employees with unsuccessful
performance evaluations, like Dr. Anoruo, were not eligible
for telework. When the agency issued Dr. Anoruo’s perfor-
mance plan for 2021, Dr. Anoruo raised concerns regarding
the alleged advantage other pharmacists had in filling
pending prescriptions by working from home. The agency
did not change his performance standards.
During Dr. Anoruo’s mid-year performance evaluation
in April 2021, his supervisor, Dr. Dale Hawkins, notified
him that he was unsuccessful in meeting the performance
standard for processing pending prescriptions. Dr. Anoruo
refused to acknowledge receipt of this appraisal because
Dr. Hawkins had not addressed Dr. Anoruo’s previous con-
cerns.
1 We refer to Dr. Anoruo’s appendices by the docket
number assigned by this court’s CM-ECF system and page
number citations are to those generated by the court’s sys-
tem. We refer to the government’s supplemental appendix
as “S.A.” and cite to its internal page numbers.
Case: 23-1114 Document: 65 Page: 4 Filed: 08/16/2023
4 ANORUO v. DVA
On June 8, 2021, Dr. Hawkins met with Dr. Anoruo
and his union representative to discuss Dr. Anoruo’s un-
successful performance on the Dispensing/Drug Distribu-
tion Functions metric. Dr. Hawkins recommended placing
Dr. Anoruo on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”).
Dr. Anoruo disagreed, explaining that his low numbers re-
sulted from unfair scheduling that left him with no “pend-
ing” rotations. On June 11, 2021, Dr. Hawkins placed Dr.
Anoruo on a PIP, which gave Dr. Anoruo 90 days to demon-
strate acceptable performance in processing pending pre-
scriptions. Dr. Hawkins offered to meet with Dr. Anoruo
biweekly to discuss Dr. Anoruo’s work, but Dr. Anoruo dis-
puted the PIP and refused to meet. After each attempted
meeting, Dr. Hawkins emailed Dr. Anoruo his performance
metrics, conduct Dr. Anoruo alleged was harassment. Dr.
Anoruo ultimately failed his PIP. In November 2021, Dr.
Anoruo was again rated unsuccessful on prescription pro-
cessing performance, based on both qualitative and quan-
titative standards (i.e., Prescription Processing Qualitative
Standards and Prescription Processing Quantitative
Standards).
Earlier that same year, on March 7, 2021, Dr. Anoruo
had filed a complaint with OSC alleging whistleblower re-
prisal. In particular, Dr. Anoruo contended that he had
faced “numerous adverse personnel actions in retaliation
for disclosing to [his] management about inequitable
scheduling, false accusations, and evidence tampering.”
S.A. 606. On January 18, 2022, the OSC notified Dr. Ano-
ruo that it had closed its investigation and he could file an
individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal with the Board.
Dr. Anoruo appealed to the Board.
After finding jurisdiction, a Board administrative
judge (“AJ”) held a five-day hearing to consider Dr. Ano-
ruo’s OSC complaints, including his 2019 complaint con-
cerning VASNHS’s mail order prescription system and his
2021 retaliation complaint. The AJ concluded that Dr.
Anoruo established a prima facie case of whistleblower
Case: 23-1114 Document: 65 Page: 5 Filed: 08/16/2023
ANORUO v. DVA 5
reprisal because he “engaged in the protected activity of ex-
ercising a complaint right” in several ongoing OSC com-
plaints, including his 2019 complaint, but that the agency
had met its burden in showing that it would have taken the
personnel actions regarding Dr. Anoruo even if he had not
engaged in whistleblowing activity, due to his repeated
failure to satisfy the performance standards. S.A. 24, 87.
The AJ denied Dr. Anoruo’s request for corrective ac-
tion. Her decision became the Board’s final decision on
September 23, 2022. Dr. Anoruo timely appealed. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and
5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1). 2
II
In reviewing the record and the Board’s decision, we
must “hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, find-
ings, or conclusions found to be – (1) arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule,
or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by
2 Dr. Anoruo argues that the Board disregarded his
allegations of discrimination based on national origin, race,
and age. In IRA appeals, the Board’s review is limited to
“the merits of allegations of violations of the Whistleblower
Protection Act.” Young v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
961 F.3d
1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Discrimination claims may
not be raised in that context.”); see also Marren v. Dep’t of
Just.,
51 M.S.P.R. 632, 638–39 (1991) (“[T]he Board’s juris-
diction to review IRA complaints based on personnel ac-
tions over which it otherwise does not have appellate
jurisdiction is limited to adjudicating the whistleblower al-
legations.”), aff’d,
980 F.2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (table);
5
U.S.C. § 1221(a). If Dr. Anuoro wants review of his dis-
crimination claims, he may file a formal Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission complaint.
Case: 23-1114 Document: 65 Page: 6 Filed: 08/16/2023
6 ANORUO v. DVA
substantial evidence.”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Substantial ev-
idence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol.
Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). We
do not consider new evidence that was not presented to the
Board. See Oshiver ex rel. Oshiver v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,
896 F.2d 540, 542 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“An employee who believes he has been subjected to il-
legal retaliation must prove by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that he made a protected disclosure that contributed
to the agency’s action against him.” Smith v. Gen. Servs.
Admin.,
930 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “If the em-
ployee establishes this prima facie case of reprisal for whis-
tleblowing, the burden of persuasion shifts to the agency to
show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have
taken the same personnel action in the absence of such dis-
closure.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
5
U.S.C. § 1221(e). In evaluating whether substantial evi-
dence supports the Board’s findings, we consider “the
strength of the agency’s evidence in support of its personnel
action; the existence and strength of any motive to retaliate
on the part of the agency officials who were involved in the
decision; and any evidence that the agency takes similar
actions against employees who are not whistleblowers but
who are otherwise similarly situated.” Carr v. Soc. Sec.
Admin.,
185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
On appeal, Dr. Anoruo contests several of the AJ’s find-
ings of fact, including that the AJ made erroneous credibil-
ity determinations, failed to consider scheduling
inequalities, relied on unreliable metrics, and failed to find
a hostile workplace. Substantial evidence supports each of
the AJ’s determinations.
Appropriately, the AJ’s findings rest in large part on
her evaluation that Dr. Anoruo was not a credible witness.
“The credibility determinations of an administrative judge
are virtually unreviewable on appeal.” Bieber v. Dep’t of
Case: 23-1114 Document: 65 Page: 7 Filed: 08/16/2023
ANORUO v. DVA 7
Army,
287 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). After observ-
ing extensive testimony from Dr. Anoruo over multiple
days, and also hearing the testimony of numerous other
witnesses, the AJ provided express credibility findings and
thoroughly explained her reasoning. See S.A. 10-22. For
instance, the AJ concluded that Dr. Anoruo made incon-
sistent statements and had a “tendency to misread or mis-
understand documents,” which undermined his credibility.
S.A. 16.
The Board also had substantial evidence to conclude
that there were no scheduling disparities between Dr. Ano-
ruo and other outpatient pharmacists. Instead, all outpa-
tient pharmacists were pulled from “pending” rotations “in
the same manner and with the same frequency.” S.A. 32;
see also S.A. 677. The AJ analyzed Dr. Hawkins’ schedule
for the 2021 fiscal year, which showed that Dr. Anoruo
worked 28 “pending” shifts, which was equivalent to 53%
of his possible pending shifts. S.A. 33; see also S.A. 677.
The AJ then carefully compared Dr Anoruo’s shifts to those
of other pharmacists and found that those who worked the
same or fewer number, and approximately the same per-
centage, of pending shifts nonetheless filled more prescrip-
tions than him. S.A. 33; see also S.A. 677.
Substantial evidence likewise supports the Board’s
findings that Dr. Anoruo did not suffer from a hostile work
environment. He primarily argues that his Centralized
Mail Order Pharmacy (“CMOP”) errors should constitute a
separate personnel action for purposes of his hostile work
environment claim. We discern no error in the AJ’s view
that accepting Dr. Anoruo’s argument “would result in in-
appropriately considering the same agency actions as two
separate personnel actions” because “these errors were at
least partially responsible for the appellant’s challenged
performance appraisal.” S.A. 36-37. In any event, any er-
ror in the AJ’s consideration of Dr. Anoruo’s CMOP errors
as a part of his challenge to his performance appraisal and
not also as part of his hostile work environment claim was
Case: 23-1114 Document: 65 Page: 8 Filed: 08/16/2023
8 ANORUO v. DVA
harmless. While Dr. Anuoro’s rating for CMOP errors for
2021 was changed to successful by the agency, his overall
rating remained unsatisfactory because he failed to meet
the metric for pending prescriptions processed per day. See
S.A. 615-16. 3
Finally, substantial evidence supports the Board’s find-
ing that the agency presented clear and convincing evi-
dence that similarly situated individuals who were not
whistleblowers were also placed on a PIP, when they failed
to meet the performance standard for processing pending
prescriptions. See, e.g., S.A. 86-87 (noting that another
pharmacist was placed on a PIP for failing to meet pending
prescription performance standard); ECF No. 56 at 12-13.
In short, the AJ reasonably held a multi-day hearing,
after which she found Dr. Anoruo lacked credibility, and
then carefully analyzed the testimony of all witnesses and
the extensive record before her. 4 Her conclusions,
3 Dr. Anoruo also argues that the AJ misapplied the
Board precedent of Skarada v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs.,
2022
MSPB 17,
2022 WL 2253877, at *5 (M.S.P.B. 2022), in con-
nection with his claim of hostile work environment.
Skarada states that “only agency actions that, individually
or collectively, have practical and significant effects on the
overall nature and quality of an employee’s working condi-
tions, duties, or responsibilities” will constitute a personnel
action.
Id. The AJ did not deviate from Skarada in consid-
ering whether each agency action, individually and collec-
tively, amounted to a “significant change in duties,
responsibilities, or working conditions.” S.A. 26.
4 Dr. Anoruo has repeatedly moved to file documents
not previously included in the appendices. To dispel any
potential confusion, we take this opportunity to make clear
that we did fully deny his motion for reconsideration that
was pending at ECF No. 57. That is, our order of August
1, 2023 (ECF No. 58), denied Dr. Anoruo’s request to file
Case: 23-1114 Document: 65 Page: 9 Filed: 08/16/2023
ANORUO v. DVA 9
including that the agency presented clear and convincing
evidence that it would have taken the same personnel ac-
tions against Dr. Anoruo even absent his whistleblower ac-
tivity, and that it had treated similarly situated non-
whistleblower pharmacists in a similar manner, were sup-
ported by substantial evidence. The Board did not err in
rejecting Dr. Anoruo’s claims.
III
We have considered Dr. Anoruo’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Board’s denial of corrective action.
AFFIRMED
his communications with OSC because he was unable to
show that these documents were in the record before the
Board. Accordingly, we now also deny his motion for recon-
sideration pending at ECF No. 62, for the same reasons.
