Nikesha Williams v. Department of Defense
Citation2023 MSPB 23
Date Filed2023-08-17
DocketPH-1221-18-0073-W-1
Cited13 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
2023 MSPB 23
Docket No. PH-1221-18-0073-W-1
Nikesha Yvette Williams,
Appellant,
v.
Department of Defense,
Agency.
August 17, 2023
Nikesha Yvette Williams, Yorktown, Virginia, pro se.
Kimberly J. Lenoci, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, for the
agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Member
OPINION AND ORDER
Ā¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For
the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the petition, REVERSE the initial
decision, and REMAND for adjudication on the merits.
BACKGROUND
Ā¶2 On November 30, 2015, the appellant received an excepted -service
appointment to a Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) (Electronics) position with
the Defense Contract Management Agency. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 10
2
at 6. Her official duty station was at the Raytheon facility in Andover,
Massachusetts. Id. As a QAS, her duties included ārisk based surveillanceā of
supplier quality systems and notifying contracting offices of deficient contract
and technical requirements. IAF, Tab 5 at 37-38.
Ā¶3 Effective October 28, 2016, the agency terminated the appellantās
employment during her probationary period based on alleged performance and
conduct issues. Id. at 55. The appellant subsequently filed a whistleblower
reprisal complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OS C). IAF, Tab 1
at 18-44. In her complaint, she alleged that, in her role as QAS, she disclosed to
management various instances of nonconformance during inspections at
Raytheon, and that the agency terminated her employment in retaliation for those
disclosures. Id. On November 3, 2017, OSC informed the appellant that it was
closing its investigation into her complaint and advised her of her Board appeal
rights, noting that her disclosures were subject to a higher evidentiary burden and
citing 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2).Id. at 138
.
Ā¶4 The appellant filed a timely IRA appeal and requested a hearing. IAF,
Tab 1 at 1-5. The administrative judge informed the appellant of her burden of
proof on jurisdiction and directed her to submit evidence and argument on the
issue. IAF, Tab 4. Both parties responded to the order. IAF, Tabs 11 -20.
Ā¶5 In an initial decision dated February 2, 2018, the administrative judge
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without conducting the appellantās
requested hearing. IAF, Tab 21, Initial Decision (ID). The administrative judge
found that the appellant had exhausted her administrative remedies with OSC
concerning six alleged protected disclosures. ID at 4. He furth er found that the
appellant nonfrivolously alleged that she reasonably believed two of those
disclosures evidenced a violation of law, rule, or regulation, specifically, the
Federal Acquisition Regulations. ID at 4-9; see 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(b)(8)(A)(i). In
addition, he found that the appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation that those
3
two disclosures were a contributing factor in her probationary termination. ID
at 9-10.
Ā¶6 However, the administrative judge further found that the appellantās
disclosures, which were made in the normal course of her duties, fell within the
scope of 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2), and would be excluded from protection under
section 2302(b)(8) absent a showing that the agency took, failed to take, or
threatened to take or fail to take a personnel action āin reprisalā for those
disclosures. 1 ID at 11. The administrative judge further reasoned that, in order to
establish jurisdiction under these circumstances, the appellant was required to
make a nonfrivolous allegation that the agency terminated her with an improper
retaliatory motive. ID at 11-12. He concluded that the appellant failed to make
such a nonfrivolous allegation, and thus failed to establish jurisdiction over her
appeal. ID at 12-13.
Ā¶7 The appellant filed a timely petition for review, in which she argues that the
administrative judge erred in finding that she failed to nonfrivolously allege an
improper retaliatory motive. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency
has filed a response. PFR File, Tab 3.
ANALYSIS
Section 2302(f)(2) does not limit the Boardās IRA jurisdiction.
Ā¶8 It is well settled that the Board has jurisdiction over an IRA appeal if the
appellant has exhausted her administrative remedies before OSC and makes
nonfrivolous allegations 2 that (1) she made a protected disclosure described under
1
Lacking the benefit of the Boardās subsequent decision in Salazar v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 42, the administrative judge did not address whether the
appellantās principal job function was to investigate and report wrongdoing.
2
The Boardās regulation at 5 C.F.R. Ā§ 1201.4(s) defines a ānonfrivolous allegationā as
āan assertion that, if proven, could establish the matter at issueā and specifies that an
allegation generally will be considered nonfrivolous when, under oath or penalty of
perjury, an individual makes an allegation that: (1) is more than conclusory; (2) is
4
5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(b)(8) or engaged in protected activity described under5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302
(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D); and (2) the disclosure or protected activity
was a contributing factor in the agencyās decision to take or fail to take a
personnel action as defined under 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(a). Smolinski v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 23 F.4th 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Salerno v. Department of
the Interior, 123 M.S.P.R. 230, Ā¶ 5 (2016). Once an appellant establishes
jurisdiction over her IRA appeal, she is entitled to a hearing on the merits of her
claim, which she must prove by preponderant evidence. Salerno, 123 M.S.P.R.
230, Ā¶ 5.
Ā¶9 In dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the administrative judge
assumed that in order for the appellant to nonfrivolously allege that her
disclosures were protected under 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(b)(8), she also had to make a
nonfrivolous allegation that her disclosures were not excluded from protection by
operation of 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2). For the reasons discussed below, we find that
5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2) does not impose an additional jurisdictional requirement,
but rather should be considered during the merits phase of adjudication .
Ā¶10 The current version of 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2), which specifically addresses
disclosures made in an employeeās normal course of duties, provides:
If a disclosure is made during the normal course of duties of an
employee, the principal job function of whom is to regularly
investigate and disclose wrongdoing (referred to in this paragraph as
the ādisclosing employeeā), the disclosure shall not be excluded
from subsection (b)(8) if the disclosing employee demonstrates that
an employee who has the authority to take, direct other individuals to
take, recommend, or approve any personnel action with resp ect to the
disclosing employee took, failed to take, or threatened to take or fail
plausible on its face; and (3) is material to the legal issues in the appeal. For purposes
of determining IRA jurisdiction, āthe question of whether the appellant has
non-frivolously alleged protected disclosures that contributed to a personnel action
must be determined based on whether the employee alleged sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.ā Hessami v. Merit
Systems Protection Board, 979 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
5
to take a personnel action with respect to the disclosing employee in
reprisal for the disclosure made by the disclosing employee. 3
The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA) first introduced
the statutory language in 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2) that a disclosure made in the
normal course of duties is protected if the agency ātook, failed to take, or
threatened to take or fail to take a personnel action with respect to ā an employee
āin reprisal for the disclosure.ā Pub. L. No. 112-199, Ā§ 101(b)(2)(C),126 Stat. 1465
, 1466 (2012). The legislative history of the WPEA makes clear that this
language was intended as an āextra proof requirement,ā such that an employee
must āshow not only that the agency took the personnel action ābecause ofā the
disclosure, but also that the agency took the action with an improper, retaliat ory
motive.ā S. Rep. No. 112-155, at 5-6 (2012), as reprinted in 2012 U.S.C.C.A.N.
589, 593-94; see also S. Rep. No. 115-74, at 8 (2017) (explaining that the 2018
NDAA amendment clarifies that a disclosure within the scope of
section 2302(f)(2) will not be excluded from whistleblower protection laws āif
the employee can demonstrate that a personnel action taken against him or her
was in reprisal for a disclosureā).
Ā¶11 However, we find nothing in the language of 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2) or its
legislative history to suggest that Congress intended for the extra proof
requirement to limit the scope of the Boardās IRA jurisdiction , which only
requires a nonfrivolous allegation that a disclosure or activity is protected and
was a contributing factor in a personnel action. Rather, the use of the term
ādemonstratesā in the statute indicates that this is a merits consideration.
āDemonstrateā is defined as āto show clearly,ā and āto prove or make clear by
3
This version of 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2) was enacted in December 2017 as part of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (2018 NDAA), prior to the
relevant events in this matter. Pub. L. No. 115-91, Ā§ 1097(c)(1)(B)(ii),131 Stat. 1283
,
1618 (2017). However, the Board has held that this version of 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2)
applies retroactively because the changes made to the statute by the 2018 NDAA merely
clarified the existing law. Salazar, 2022 MSPB 42, Ā¶Ā¶ 13-21.
6
reasoning or evidence.ā Merriam-Websterās Collegiate Dictionary 307 (10th ed.
2002). Furthermore, the word ādemonstratesā in 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2) is the
same term used in 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 1221(e)(1), which describes the employeeās burden
of proof on the merits of a claim under 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(b)(8) or (b)(9). See
5 U.S.C. Ā§ 1221(e)(1) (providing that the Board shall order corrective action if
the appellant āhas demonstratedā that a protected disclosure or activity was a
contributing factor in the contested personnel action); Watson v. Department of
Justice, 64 F.3d 1524, 1527-28 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (equating ādemonstratesā in
section 1221(e)(1) with āprovesā). Generally, ā[a] word or phrase is presumed to
bear the same meaning throughout a text.ā Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm
Incorporated, 21 F.4th 784, 793 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Antonin Scalia &
Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law, 170 (2012)); see also Gustafson v. Alloyd
Company, 513 U.S. 561, 568 (1995) (āIn seeking to interpret the term
āprospectus,ā we adopt the premise that the term should be construed, if possible,
to give it a consistent meaning throughout the Act. That principle follows from
our duty to construe statutes, not isolated provisions.ā). We therefore conclude
that for purposes of 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2), to ādemonstrateā means to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence. 4 See Langer v. Department of the Treasury,
265 F.3d 1259, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that an appellant in an IRA
appeal must prove his prima facie case by preponderant evidence ).
Ā¶12 Under the whistleblower protection statutes, āwhether [an] allegation can be
proven is a question on the merits that does not properly form a part of the
4
The courts have similarly found that the term ādemonstrate,ā as used in other
whistleblower protection statutes, entails proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
See Allen v. Administrative Review Board, 514 F.3d 468, 476 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008)
(interpreting ādemonstratesā in the whistleblower protection provision of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. Ā§ 1514A, as requiring proof by preponderant evidence);
Dysert v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, 105 F.3d 607, 609-10 (11th Cir. 1997) (interpreting
ādemonstrateā in a whistleblower protection provision of the Energy Reorganization
Act, 42 U.S.C. Ā§ 5851, as requiring proof by preponderant evidence).
7
jurisdictional inquiry.ā Johnston v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 518 F.3d
905, 911 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Reid v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 508 F.3d 674, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The requirement of proof
by preponderant evidence implies a weighing of all relevant and competent
evidence, which can be accomplished only after development of the record,
including a hearing if one has been requested. 5 C.F.R. Ā§ 1201.4(q) (defining
āpreponderance of the evidenceā as the degree of relevant evidence that a
reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient
to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue); see Chiles v.
Bowen, 695 F. Supp. 357, 360 (S.D. Ohio 1988) (ā[T]he preponderance of the
evidence standard necessarily involves the consideration of the evidence both in
support of and contrary to a proposition and the weighing of each to determine
which represents the preponderance; this standard requires that all the evidence
be examined in relation to the other to determine the balance.ā) (emphasis in
original). Accordingly, we conclude that the potential applicability of 5 U.S.C.
Ā§ 2302(f)(2) is not part of the jurisdictional analysis in an IRA appeal.
The appeal is remanded for adjudication on the merits.
Ā¶13 As noted above, the administrative judge found that the appellant proved
by preponderant evidence that she exhausted her remedies with OSC, and made
nonfrivolous allegations that two of her disclosures were protected under
section 2302(b)(8) and were a contributing factor in her probationary termination.
We discern no error in those findings, and the parties do not contest them on
review. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board has jurisdiction over this
appeal, and that the appellant is entitled to a hearing on the merits of her claim.
Salerno, 123 M.S.P.R. 230, Ā¶ 5.
Ā¶14 On remand, the appellant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that her disclosures were protected under 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(b)(8) and that
they were a contributing factor in the contested personnel action. 5 U.S.C.
Ā§ 1221(e)(1). If the appellantās principal job function was to regularly investigate
8
and disclose wrongdoing and she made her disclosures in the normal course of her
duties, to establish that her disclosures were protected, the appellant must also
prove that the agency had an improper, retaliatory motive for terminating her.
5 U.S.C. Ā§ 2302(f)(2); S. Rep. No. 112-155, at 5-6.
Ā¶15 In conducting that analysis, the administrative judge should first determine
whether: (1) the appellantās primary job function at the time of the disclosure
was to investigate and disclose wrongdoing; and (2) the disclosure was made in
the normal course of the appellantās duties. The administrative judge may
consider these questions in whichever order is more efficient, and the parties
should be provided an opportunity to submit relevant evidence and argument. If
either condition is unsatisfied, then section 2302(f)(2) does not apply, and the
appellantās disclosures would fall under the generally applicable 5 U.S.C.
Ā§ 2302(b)(8). Salazar v. Department of Veterans Affairs,2022 MSPB 42, Ā¶ 22
.
Ā¶16 If conditions (1) and (2) are both satisfied, the administrative judge should
next determine whether the appellant can meet her additional burden under
section 2302(f)(2) by demonstrating that the agency took the contested personnel
action āin reprisalā for her disclosures. In doing so, the administrative judge
should consider the totality of the evidence. 5 C.F.R. Ā§ 1201.4(q) (stating that the
record as a whole should be considered when determining whether a party has
met the preponderance of the evidence standard); see Whitmore v. Department of
Labor, 680 F.3d 1353, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (āIt is error for the MSPB to not
evaluate all the pertinent evidence in determining whether an element of a claim
or defense has been proven adequately.ā). In addition to any direct evidence of
retaliatory animus, the administrative judge should consider circumstantial
evidence, including the following factors: (1) whether the agency officials
responsible for taking the personnel action knew of the disclosures and the
personnel action occurred within a period of time such that a reasonable person
could conclude that the disclosures were in reprisal for the personnel action;
(2) the strength or weakness of the agencyās reasons for taking the personnel
9
action; (3) whether the disclosures were personally directed at the agency
officials responsible for taking the action; (4) whether the acting officials had a
desire or motive to retaliate against the appellant; and (5) whether the agency
took similar personnel actions against similarly situated employees who had not
made disclosures. See 5 U.S.C. Ā§ 1221(e)(1) (explaining that an individual can
prove that her disclosure was a contributing factor in a personnel action through
circumstantial evidence, including the knowledge/timing test); Carr v. Social
Security Administration, 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (setting forth the
factors for determining whether an agency has met its clear and convincing
burden); Rumsey v. Department of Justice, 120 M.S.P.R. 259, Ā¶ 26 (2013) (listing
factors to be considered in determining whether an appellant has demonstrated
contributing factor where the knowledge/timing test has not been satisfied ).
ORDER
Ā¶17 We remand this appeal to the regional office for further adjudication
consistent with this Opinion and Order.
FOR THE BOARD:
/s/
Jennifer Everling
Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.