Gina Harrell v. United States Postal Service

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
GINA HARRELL, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, AT-0752-16-0818-I-2
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DATE: June 29, 2023
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Gina Harrell, Hampton, Georgia, pro se.
Patricia Edgehille, Norwood, Massachusetts, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Member
Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed her indefinite suspension. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one
only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains 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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
2
findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous
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).
BACKGROUND
¶2 On July 14, 2016, the agency proposed indefinitely suspending the
appellant, a GS-14 Postal Inspector, based on a two-count Accusation filed in
state court and supported by county police reports charging her with one count of
Following Too Closely and one count of Hit and Run, offenses for which the
agency claimed it had reasonable cause to believe she had committed a crime for
which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed. Harrell v. U.S. Postal
Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-16-0818-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF),
Tab 1 at 1, 10-12. After granting the appellant an extension of time to respond to
the proposal, the agency issued its decision to indefinitely suspend her, effective
August 18, 2016, and continuing until the resolution of the criminal charges
against her. 3 Id. at 8-9.
3
Although the agency initially appeared to be relying on the crime exception to shorten
the advance notice period, the record reflects that the agency gave the appellant more
than 30 days’ notice before effecting her suspension, issuing its notice on July 14, 2016,
and, after extending the time for her response, effecting the appellant’s indefinite
suspension on August 16, 2016. IAF, Tab 1 at 6-10; see 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b); see also
Perez v. Department of Justice, 480 F.3d 1309, 1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
3
¶3 In her appeal to the Board, the appellant argued that the agency lacked the
requisite reasonable cause to indefinitely suspend her. Id. at 6. She also claimed
disparate treatment, arguing that another employee in her division was placed on
administrative leave, rather than on an indefinite suspension, after he allegedly
possessed a firearm on agency property. Id. The agency moved to dismiss the
appeal without prejudice until the resolution of the criminal charges, and the
appellant responded in opposition, requesting a prompt ruling on the agency’s
motion. IAF, Tabs 11, 13-14. The administrative judge granted the agency’s
motion and dismissed the appeal without prejudice until the criminal charges
against the appellant were resolved. IAF, Tab 15, Initial Decision.
¶4 The appellant, who was represented by counsel below, promptly refiled her
appeal, and, “to alleviate any concern the Board has with her testifying” while her
criminal matter was still pending, she withdrew her request for a hearing, as well
as her affirmative defenses, and requested that the administrative judge promptly
decide the matter on the written record. Harrell v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
Docket No. AT-0752-16-0818-I-2 (I-2 AF), Tab 1. Based on the appellant’s
waiver of her hearing request and affirmative defenses, the administrative judge
issued an order setting a date for the close of the record and allowing the agency
an opportunity to object to the refiling of the appeal. I -2 AF, Tab 2. The parties
subsequently entered joint stipulations into the record in which the appellant
acknowledged that the Henry County Police Department had arrested and charged
her by Accusation in criminal court with Following Too Closely and Hit and Run.
I-2 AF, Tab 4 at 4. Both parties also submitted closing briefs. I -2 AF, Tabs 5-6.
¶5 On the written record, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
that affirmed the appellant’s indefinite suspension, finding that the police reports
the agency relied upon were sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for
suspending her. I-2 AF, Tab 7, Initial Decision (ID) at 8-10. Moreover, the
4
administrative judge found that, because the Accusation 4 filed by the district
attorney, which charged the appellant with one count of Following Too Closely,
in violation of Official Code of Georgia Section 40-6-49, and one count of Hit
and Run; Duty of Driver to Stop at or Return to Scene of Accident, in violation of
Official Code of Georgia Section 40-6-270, carried a potential statutory penalty
that included incarceration, the Accusation provided reasonable cause to believe
that the appellant committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment could
be imposed. ID at 8-9. The administrative judge also found that the indefinite
suspension was reasonable and had an ascertainable end and that the agency
proved there was a nexus between the appellant’s alleged misconduct and the
efficiency of the service. ID at 10-11.
¶6 In her timely filed petition for review, the appellant contends that the
agency relied on incomplete evidence because it failed to independently follo w up
on her explanation for what happened or to interview the sole eyewitness to the
event. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. She asserts that she always
has taken responsibility for the accident and did not intentionally leave the scene.
Id. The agency responds in opposition to the petition for review. PFR File,
Tab 3.
DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶7 An indefinite suspension lasting more than 14 days is an adverse action
appealable to the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d). 5 U.S.C. § 7512(2); e.g.,
Henderson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 123 M.S.P.R. 536, ¶ 5 (2016),
aff’d, 878 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017). To establish that an indefinite suspension
is valid, the agency must show the following: (1) it imposed the suspension for
an authorized reason; (2) the suspension has an ascertainable end; (3) there i s a
4
The administrative judge also found that the Accusation filed by the Henry County
District Attorney’s office was entitled to the same evidentiary weight as a criminal
indictment issued by a grand jury. ID at 9.
5
nexus between the alleged misconduct and the efficiency of the service; and
(4) the penalty is reasonable. Henderson, 123 M.S.P.R. 536, ¶ 5. As relevant
here, one authorized circumstance for imposing an indefinite suspension is when
the agency has reasonable cause to believe that an employee has committed a
crime for which a sentence of imprisonment could be imposed. Id.; Gonzalez v.
Department of Homeland Security, 114 M.S.P.R. 318, ¶ 13 (2010) (enumerating a
nonexhaustive list of the three circumstances in which the Board and our
reviewing court have approved the use of an indefinite suspension).
¶8 As noted above, the administrative judge found that the agency had
reasonable cause, based on the Accusation filed by the district attorney, to believ e
that the appellant had committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment
could be imposed and that the suspension had an ascertainable end, bore a nexus
to the efficiency of the service, and was a reasonable penalty under the
circumstances. ID at 8-11. On review, the appellant generally reasserts the
arguments she set forth below, but she only specifically challenges the
administrative judge’s finding of reasonable cause. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. She
asserts that the administrative judge mistakenly interpreted the law and argues
that the agency erred by failing to conduct its own investigation into the alleged
misconduct. Id. For the following reasons, we disagree.
¶9 The Board has found that “reasonable cause” in the context of an indefinite
suspension based on possible criminal misconduct is virtually synonymous with
“probable cause,” the standard necessary to support a grand jury indictment, i.e.,
probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused
has probably committed it. Henderson, 123 M.S.P.R. 536, ¶ 7. An arrest warrant
alone is insufficient to meet this standard; however, the warrant “coupled with”
other factual material obtained from a criminal complaint and supporting
allegations may provide the agency with reasonable cause . Henderson, 878 F.3d
at 1049-50 (citing Dunnington v. Department of Justice, 956 F.2d 1151, 1157-58
(Fed Cir 1992)). Moreover, as a general rule, a formal judicial determination
6
following a preliminary hearing or an indictment following an investigation and
grand jury proceedings is sufficient to meet the reasonable cause standard. Id.at 1050 (citing, among other cases, Dunnington, 956 F.2d at 1157).
¶10 We agree with the administrative judge that both the police reports and the
Accusation filed by the district attorney sufficiently provide the reasonable cause
necessary to sustain the appellant’s indefinite suspension. ID at 8-10; IAF, Tab 5
at 12-22, 25-26. The touchstone of a finding of “reasonable cause” must be
whether the agency had sufficient facts to provide a sound basis for its action .
Ellis v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 60 M.S.P.R. 681, 683 (1994) (citing
Dunnington, 956 F.2d at 1157). The administrative judge found the sum of the
agency’s evidence in support of its decision to indefinitely suspend the appellant
showed that she struck a bicyclist from behind while she was driving and that she
failed to either stop or render aid. ID at 8; IAF, Tab 5 at 12-22. The evidence
recounted the statement of an eyewitness who saw the bicyclist fly through the air
and then followed the appellant’s car as she left the scene and reported her license
plate number to the police. IAF, Tab 5 at 13. The statement of a police officer
involved in the investigation recounted the fact that the appellant already had
filed a claim with her insurance company and was at a collision repair shop to
have her vehicle fixed when he tracked her down in the aftermath of the accident.
Id. at 17. Several officers remarked that they found car parts at the scene of the
accident, including a passenger side rear view mirror, which matched the
description of the appellant’s vehicle. Id. at 13, 17, 19. In light of the strength of
this evidence, we discern no error in the agency’s decision not to conduct an
independent investigation. See Hernandez v. Department of the Navy,
120 M.S.P.R. 14, ¶¶ 15-16 (2013) (finding that the reasonable cause requirement
was satisfied, notwithstanding that the agency proposed the indefinite suspension
based upon court documents and did not conduct an independent investigation
into the criminal charges, because the district attorney had filed a complaint and
the employee had been ordered to appear for a jury trial) ; see also Henderson,
7
878 F.3d at 1050 (finding that the agency had no obligation to conduct further
investigation after the appellant’s indictment before suspending him and
suggesting that such an investigation would in fact be disfavored).
¶11 We also agree with the administrative judge’s finding that the indefinite
suspension in this matter has an ascertainable end, i.e., resolution of the criminal
charges against the appellant, that the agency demonstrated the requisite nexus
between the appellant’s misconduct and the efficiency of the service, and that the
penalty is within the bounds of reasonableness. ID at 10-11; see White v.
U.S. Postal Service, 22 M.S.P.R. 452, 454-57 (1984) (sustaining the indefinite
suspension of a Postmaster indicted for tampering with evidence following his
attempt to get his car repaired after a hit and run accident), aff’d, 768 F.2d 334(Fed. Cir. 1985). The appellant does not specifically challenge these findings on
review. Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s petition for review and affirm the
initial decision.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
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
review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal r ights, 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
5
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 notice, th e
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
8
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.
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.
9
(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
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:
10
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
competent jurisdiction. 6 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).
6
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.
11
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 websi te 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.
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.