Dean Frederick v. Tennessee Valley Authority ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
DEAN M. FREDERICK, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, AT-0752-21-0494-I-1
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, DATE: August 18, 2023
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Marti L. Kaufman, Esquire, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant.
Courteney M. Barnes-Anderson, Esquire, and John E. Slater, Esquire,
Knoxville, Tennessee, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
reversed the appellant’s demotion. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one
only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains e rroneous
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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 and AFFIRM the initial
decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). We
also DENY the appellant’s motion to dismiss the agency’s petition for review and
DENY the appellant’s petition for enforcement of the interim relief order.
DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2 On April 30, 2021, the agency sent a letter to the appellant proposing his
demotion from his position as Paradise Site Manager, Combined Cycle Plant, for
alleged violations of agency policy. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7 at 55.
Specifically, the agency stated that an investigation had substantiated allegations
that the appellant made inappropriate comments and improperly gave gifts to his
subordinate employees. Id. By letter dated June 1, 2021, the agency sustained
the appellant’s demotion to a “first line leader” position, effective June 21, 2021.
Id. at 21-22; IAF, Tab 53, Initial Decision (ID) at 1 n.1.
¶3 The appellant filed an appeal with the Board. IAF, Tab 1. Although a
hearing was held, the agency elected not to present witness testimony or other
documents in support of its charge, instead relying on documents in its agency
file, including a summary of an investigation conducted by the agency. ID at 3 &
n.5; Hearing Recording. The investigative summary did not include underlying
documents such as sworn or unsworn witness statements or recordings, and it did
3
not include the identity of any witnesses. IAF, Tab 7 at 60 -69. In an initial
decision, the administrative judge reversed the agency’s action, finding that the
agency failed to meet its burden to prove the charges by preponderant evidence .
ID at 3-9. He ordered the agency to retroactively restore the appellant to his
position of Paradise Site Manager, Combined Cycle Plant, effective June 21,
2021, and he ordered the agency to provide interim relief if a petition for review
was filed by either party. ID at 9-11. Consistent with 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(a), the
administrative judge instructed the agency that a petition for review must be
accompanied by a certification that it complied with the interim relief order. ID
at 10-11.
¶4 The agency has filed a petition for review, the appellant has filed a
response, and the agency has filed a reply. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
Tabs 1, 6-7. The appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the agency’s petition for
review, and the agency has filed a response. PFR File, Tabs 3, 5. The appellant
has also filed a petition for enforcement, and the agency has filed a response.
PFR File, Tabs 8-9.
We deny the appellant’s motion to dismiss the agency’s petition for review and
his motion for enforcement.
¶5 The appellant has requested that the Board dismiss the agency’s petition for
review because it failed to include a certification that it had complied with the
interim relief order. PFR File, Tab 3 at 4-5; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(e). One day
after the appellant filed his motion to dismiss, the agency filed a pleading
certifying that it had complied with the interim relief order by reinstating the
appellant to a Plant Manager position and paying him back pay. PFR File, Tab 4
at 4. We exercise our discretion to address the petition for review on the merits
and deny the motion to dismiss. See Thome v. Department of Homeland Security,
122 M.S.P.R. 315, ¶ 16 (2015) (explaining that the Board’s authority to dismiss
an agency petition under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(e) is discretionary, not mandatory).
4
¶6 The appellant’s petition for enforcement is also premised on the agency’s
purported failure to comply with the interim relief order . PFR File, Tab 8. The
Board’s regulations do not allow for a petition for enforcement of an interim
relief order. Bryant v. Department of the Army, 2022 MSPB 1, ¶ 6; see 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.182(a) (providing for petitions for enforcement of final Board orders).
The Board has treated a petition for enforcement of an interim relief order as a
motion to dismiss the agency’s petition for review. See Jolivette v. Department of
the Navy, 100 M.S.P.R. 216, ¶ 5 n.1 (2005). As set forth above, we exercise our
discretion to decide the petition for review on the merits and deny the petition for
enforcement. 2
We deny the agency’s petition for review and affirm the initial decision.
¶7 In its petition for review, the agency asserts that the administrative judge
abused his discretion in disallowing certain evidence and that he erred in
affording too little weight to the agency’s investigative summary, which it argues
substantiated the charges against the appellant . PFR File, Tab 1 at 9 n.7, 13-24.
The agency has attached to its petition for review the document that it contends
the administrative judge incorrectly declined to consider. Id. at 29-32.
¶8 We first find that the administrative judge did not abuse his discretion in
denying the agency’s motion to file additional evidence. Pursuant to the
administrative judge’s order, IAF, Tab 16 at 1, the agency filed its prehearing
submissions on November 29, 2021, wherein the agency identified two hearing
witnesses and stated that it was not filing additional prehearing exhibits because
it intended to rely on documents already in the record, IAF, Tab 26 at 4-6. On
April 13, 2022, the agency filed a motion entitled Motion to Amend Agency’s
Initial Response. IAF, Tab 38. In its motion, the agency asserted that it had
recently learned that it inadvertently omitted a document from its initial response,
2
If the appellant believes that the agency is not in compliance with this Final Order, he
may file a petition for enforcement consistent with the procedures set forth in ¶¶ 12-15.
5
and it requested to add the document to the record. Id. at 4. The appellant
opposed the agency’s motion. IAF, Tab 39. The administrative judge denied the
motion, finding that the deadline for submitting the agency file and prehearing
submissions had expired and that the evidence the agency sought to introduce was
not newly discovered. IAF, Tab 45 at 2.
¶9 The Board will not find reversible error in an administrative judge’s
discovery rulings absent an abuse of discretion that prejudiced the appellant’s
substantive rights. See Wagner v. Environmental Protection Agency , 54 M.S.P.R.
447, 452 (1992), aff’d, 996 F.2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Table). The agency has
not established that the administrative judge committed an abuse of discretion in
denying as untimely its request to file additional evidence. See Defense
Intelligence Agency v. Department of Defense , 122 M.S.P.R. 444, ¶ 16 (2015)
(finding that the administrative judge did not abuse her discretion in failing to
consider untimely prehearing submissions and closing brief) ; Fritts v. Department
of Homeland Security, 102 M.S.P.R. 265, ¶ 15 n.2 (2006) (finding no abuse of
discretion when the administrative judge excluded proffered exhibits because they
were untimely submitted after the prehearing conference).
¶10 As to merits, the agency disagrees with the administrative judge’s weighing
of the evidence in the record and argues that he afforded too little weight to its
investigative summary. PFR File, Tab 1 at 13-24. The Board generally will not
disturb an administrative judge’s conclusions when, as here, the initial decision
reflects that the administrative judge considered the evidence as a whole, drew
appropriate inferences, and made reasoned conclusions on issues of credibility.
See Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 106 (1997); Broughton v.
Department of Health and Human Services, 33 M.S.P.R. 357, 359 (1987). The
agency has not provided a basis to disturb the administrative judge’s factual
findings. To the extent the agency argues that the administrative judge
disregarded the investigative summary entirely because it was hearsay, we
disagree. PFR File, Tab 1 at 13-14. The administrative judge appropriately
6
considered several factors in determining the weight to afford the agency’s
hearsay evidence, and we agree with his conclusions. ID at 4 -8 (identifying the
factors to be weighed in considering hearsay evidence, pursuant to Borninkhof v.
Department of Justice, 5 M.S.P.R. 77, 87 (1981), and applying those factors).
¶11 Based on the foregoing, we deny the agency’s petition for review and affirm
the initial decision reversing the appellant’s demotion.
ORDER
¶12 We ORDER the agency to cancel the appellant’s demotion and to restore
the appellant to the position of Paradise Site Manager, Combined Cycle Plant,
effective June 21, 2021. 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.
¶13 We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back
pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under Tennessee Valley Authority
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 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.
¶14 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).
¶15 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
7
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).
¶16 For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finan ce 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 payment 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
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 3
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
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 noti ce, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
8
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.
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.
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.
(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. 420 (2017). If you have a 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
10
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
(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
11
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.
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 war rants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
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.
12
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.