Williams v. Bop

Case: 22-1575 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 07/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JACQUANA WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent
______________________
2022-1575
______________________
Petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision in No.
210604-07363 by Stephen Douglas Bonney.
______________________
Decided: July 6, 2023
______________________
JACK K. WHITEHEAD, JR., Whitehead Law Firm, Baton
Rouge, LA, argued for petitioner. Also represented by
JOHN-ED LONG BISHOP.
EBONIE I. BRANCH, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, MAYER and HUGHES, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 22-1575 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 07/06/2023
2 WILLIAMS v. BOP
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Jacquana Williams appeals an arbitrator’s final deci-
sion upholding her removal from the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP). Because the arbitrator failed to properly
analyze the Douglas factors, we vacate and remand.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Williams was employed as a correctional officer
with the BOP at the Federal Correctional Complex in
Beaumont, Texas (FCC-Beaumont) beginning March 4,
2018. Around January 2016, Ms. Williams met Alex
Hayes. The two were engaged in July 2018 and had a child
in September 2018. Mr. Hayes had been in BOP custody
from June 2005 until July 2013, including as an inmate at
FCC-Beaumont from June 2005 to October 2006. He was
on supervised release until July 15, 2018. Although Ms.
Williams knew Mr. Hayes had previously been incarcer-
ated, she was unaware he had been in federal custody.
In May 2019, after learning of Ms. Williams’ relation-
ship with Mr. Hayes, the BOP placed Ms. Williams on ad-
ministrative reassignment, and Internal Affairs launched
an investigation into whether Ms. Williams maintained im-
proper contact with a former inmate and failed to report
such contact. Under the Standards of Employee Conduct,
employees may not “show partiality toward, or become
emotionally, physically, sexually, or financially involved
with inmates, [or] former inmates.” Appx. 73. 1 If employ-
ees engage in improper contact with inmates or former in-
mates, then they must report the contact in writing to the
BOP. Appx. 74. The Standards define “former inmate” as
“[a]n inmate for whom less than one year has elapsed since
his/her release from [BOP] custody or supervision of a
1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed by the BOP.
“S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed by Ms.
Williams.
Case: 22-1575 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 07/06/2023
WILLIAMS v. BOP 3
Federal court[,] . . . whichever is later.” Appx. 72. Mr.
Hayes met this definition of “former inmate” until July 15,
2019, one year after his supervised release ended.
While Internal Affairs’ investigation was pending, Ms.
Williams heard rumors about why she was reassigned, in-
cluding that she was in a relationship with a former in-
mate. After questioning Mr. Hayes, she learned for the
first time, on June 3, 2019, that he had been incarcerated
in federal prison. She reported her relationship to the BOP
the next day.
Internal Affairs concluded its investigation on July 8,
2019, finding Ms. Williams had engaged in improper con-
tact with a former inmate and failed to timely report the
contact. On February 5, 2020, the BOP issued a notice of
proposed removal based on two charges: (1) improper con-
tact with a former inmate; and (2) failure to timely report.
The warden sustained the charges and removed Ms. Wil-
liams effective April 22, 2021.
Ms. Williams challenged her removal with an arbitra-
tor through the negotiated grievance procedure. After a
hearing, the arbitrator sustained the charge of improper
contact with a former inmate. He found Ms. Williams vio-
lated the BOP’s anti-fraternization rule from March 5,
2018 until July 15, 2019. The arbitrator, however, did not
sustain the BOP’s charge of failure to report. He found Ms.
Williams did not learn Mr. Hayes was a former federal in-
mate until June 3, 2019 and reported it immediately. The
arbitrator nevertheless upheld the BOP’s penalty of re-
moval because he determined the warden considered the
relevant Douglas factors and exercised his discretion
“within tolerable limits of reasonableness.” Appx. 26–31.
Ms. Williams appeals. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.
§§ 7121(f), 7703(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
Case: 22-1575 Document: 54 Page: 4 Filed: 07/06/2023
4 WILLIAMS v. BOP
DISCUSSION
A federal employee seeking to challenge disciplinary
action by her employing agency may either appeal her
claim to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or
take her claim to an arbitrator through a negotiated griev-
ance procedure created by collective bargaining agreement.
5 U.S.C. § 7121(e)(1); Buffkin v. Dep’t of Def., 957 F.3d
1327, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We review the arbitrator’s de-
cision under the same standard of review that applies to
appeals from the MSPB. 5 U.S.C. § 7121(f). We must af-
firm the arbitrator’s decision unless it is “(1) arbitrary, ca-
pricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
(3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(c).
To take adverse action against an employee, an agency
must show the charged conduct occurred, it affected the ef-
ficiency of service, and “the penalty imposed was reasona-
ble in light of the relevant factors set forth in Douglas.”
Malloy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 578 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (citing Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 5 M.S.P.B. 313(1981)). Ms. Williams does not challenge the sustained
charge on appeal; she only challenges the penalty of re-
moval. Specifically, she argues the arbitrator failed to per-
form the proper analysis of the Douglas factors in
upholding her removal. We agree.
When an arbitrator sustains fewer than all of the
agency’s charges, the arbitrator “may mitigate to the max-
imum reasonable penalty” for the sustained charges unless
the agency has indicated it desires a lesser penalty be im-
posed on fewer charges. Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246,
1260 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, the BOP did not indicate it
desired a lesser penalty than removal if the arbitrator only
sustained the improper contact charge. Accordingly, be-
cause the arbitrator only sustained one of the BOP’s two
Case: 22-1575 Document: 54 Page: 5 Filed: 07/06/2023
WILLIAMS v. BOP 5
charges, he was required to independently determine the
maximum reasonable penalty to be imposed upon Ms. Wil-
liams. In such circumstances, the arbitrator must inde-
pendently analyze and balance the relevant Douglas
factors. Tartaglia v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 858 F.3d 1405,
1408 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The arbitrator failed to conduct the independent anal-
ysis required under Lachance and Tartaglia. Rather, he
simply deferred to the warden’s analysis of the relevant
Douglas factors. See Appx. 26–31. In upholding the pen-
alty of removal, the arbitrator stated:
On these facts, the just and fair thing to do would
be to set aside the removal in favor of a long sus-
pension, reinstate [Ms. Williams] to her position as
a federal corrections officer, and order a back pay
remedy. If this were a private sector case, I would
do the just and fair thing, and I would have rea-
sonable confidence that the courts would not over-
turn my decision. But the controlling law requires
me to sustain the Agency’s chosen penalty “if the
Agency considered all of the relevant [Douglas] fac-
tors and exercised management discretion within
tolerable limits of reasonableness.” Thus, in my
judgment, I am constrained to uphold the removal
because management considered – perhaps by rote
– the relevant Douglas factors and exercised its dis-
cretion – by only the narrowest of possible margins
– within tolerable limits of reasonableness.
Appx. 31 (second alteration in original) (italics added) (in-
ternal citation omitted). It is clear from this passage the
arbitrator misunderstood the relevant legal standard. In-
deed, in summarizing the relevant law, he stated, “an
agency’s decision with respect to penalty is entitled to def-
erence.” Appx. 27. While this is generally the case, the
arbitrator failed to appreciate that when he sustains fewer
than all of the agency’s charges, he is the one who must
Case: 22-1575 Document: 54 Page: 6 Filed: 07/06/2023
6 WILLIAMS v. BOP
determine the maximum reasonable penalty. See Tar-
taglia, 858 F.3d at 1408.
Despite this, the BOP argues the arbitrator conducted
the proper analysis simply because he discussed specific
Douglas factors. See Appx. 26–29. The arbitrator’s discus-
sion of the Douglas factors, however, amounted to nothing
more than a deferential review of the warden’s analysis of
the factors. For example, with respect to the final Douglas
factor, the arbitrator simply found “the Warden enter-
tained the possibility of lesser sanctions but rejected that
possibility in favor of removal” because “the Warden testi-
fied that his loss of confidence in [Ms. Williams] took all
options other than removal off the table.” Appx. 29. Such
reasoning only speaks to whether the warden considered
the effectiveness of alternative sanctions, not whether the
arbitrator himself believed alternative sanctions would be
effective to deter similar misconduct.
Not only did the arbitrator fail to independently ana-
lyze the appropriateness of alternative sanctions, he ac-
cepted for sanctions purposes the warden’s fact findings
which the arbitrator himself had rejected. The warden tes-
tified that he found Ms. Williams untrustworthy because
she failed to timely report her relationship with Mr. Hayes.
See S. Appx. 62 (“[W]ithholding the information about her
relationship with Mr. Hayes is obviously unacceptable. . . .
So a failure to report is a serious offense.”); S. Appx. 84–86
(“[H]aving not been truthful in that sense and having not
been forthright with what transpired between her and Mr.
Hayes is just too much of a chance that I’m not willing to –
to overlook.”). The failure to report charge—which clearly
drove the warden’s decision for removal—was not sus-
tained by the arbitrator. Rather, the arbitrator found Ms.
Williams immediately reported her relationship with Mr.
Hayes as soon as she learned he had been in federal cus-
tody. Appx. 19–20 (finding Ms. Williams’ testimony to be
“entirely credible”). The arbitrator erred by deferring to
Case: 22-1575 Document: 54 Page: 7 Filed: 07/06/2023
WILLIAMS v. BOP 7
the warden’s determination that Ms. Williams was un-
trustworthy because of her alleged failure to timely report.
We vacate the penalty of removal and remand for the
arbitrator to independently analyze the relevant Douglas
factors and determine the maximum reasonable penalty in
light of the only sustained charge. On remand, the arbitra-
tor should pay close attention to the adequacy of lesser
sanctions in light of his finding that Ms. Williams immedi-
ately reported her relationship once she discovered Mr.
Hayes was a former inmate.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, we vacate and remand the
arbitrator’s final decision.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs awarded to Ms. Williams.