Opinion

Steven McDaniel v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Court
Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SPECIAL COUNSEL DOCKET NUMBER

EX REL. STEVEN MCDANIEL, CB-1208-23-0006-U-5

Petitioner,

v.

DATE: November 17, 2023

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

THIS STAY ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Dustin Seth Frankel , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.

Katherine W. Krems , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the relator. 2

Glen E. Woodworth , Esquire, Anchorage, Alaska, for the agency.

Theodore M. Miller , Esquire, Seattle, Washington, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

To the extent the relator may have a new representative, he must file a signed

designation pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.31.

2

ORDER ON STAY EXTENSION REQUEST

¶1 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(B), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

requests a 60-day extension of the previously granted stay of the probationary

termination of Mr. McDaniel by the Department of Veterans Affairs (agency)

while OSC completes its investigation and legal review of the matter and

determines whether to seek corrective action. For the reasons discussed below,

OSC’s request is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On April 6, 2023, OSC requested a 45-day initial stay of the probationary

termination of Mr. McDaniel based on alleged misconduct. Special Counsel ex

rel. McDaniel v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. CB-1208-23-

0006-U-1, Stay Request File, Tab 1. In its initial stay request, OSC argued that it

had reasonable grounds to believe that the agency’s action was in retaliation for

Mr. McDaniel’s protected disclosures and activities under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)

and (b)(9)(C). Id. On April 10, 2023, OSC’s initial stay request was granted

through and including May 24, 2023. Special Counsel ex rel. McDaniel v.

Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. CB-1208-23-0006-U-1, Order

on Stay Request, ¶¶ 1, 10 (Apr. 10, 2023). OSC subsequently requested, and the

Board granted, three extensions of the stay. 3 The stay currently ends on

November 20, 2023. Special Counsel ex rel. McDaniel v. Department of Veterans

3

By order dated May 24, 2023, the Board granted OSC’s request to extend the stay for

60 days, through and including July 23, 2023. Special Counsel ex rel. McDaniel v.

Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. CB-1208-23-0006-U-2, Order on

Stay Extension Request (May 24, 2023). By order dated July 19, 2023, the Board

granted OSC’s second request to extend the stay for 60 days, through and including

September 21, 2023. Special Counsel ex rel. McDaniel v. Department of Veterans

Affairs, MSPB Docket No. CB-1208-23-0006-U-3, Order on Stay Extension Request

(July 19, 2023). By order dated September 7, 2023, the Board granted OSC’s third

request to extend the stay for 60 days, through and including November 20, 2023.

Special Counsel ex rel. McDaniel v. Department of Veterans Affairs , MSPB Docket

No. CB-1208-23-0006-U-4, Order on Stay Extension Request (Sept. 7, 2023).

3

Affairs, MSPB Docket No. CB-1208-23-0006-U-4, Order on Stay Extension

Request, ¶ 8 (Sept. 7, 2023).

¶3 On November 2, 2023, OSC filed a fourth request to extend the stay for an

additional 60 days. Special Counsel ex rel. McDaniel v. Department of Veterans

Affairs, MSPB Docket No. CB-1208-23-0006-U-5, Stay Request File (U-5 SRF),

Tab 1. OSC asserts that the agency consents to the extension request, and the

agency has not filed a response. Id. at 2.

ANALYSIS

¶4 A stay granted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1) is issued to maintain the

status quo ante while OSC and the agency involved resolve the disputed matter.

Special Counsel v. Department of Transportation, 74 M.S.P.R. 155, 157 (1997).

The purpose of the stay is to minimize the consequences of an alleged prohibited

personnel practice. Id. In evaluating a request for an extension of a stay, the

Board will review the record in the light most favorable to OSC and will grant a

stay extension request if OSC’s prohibited personnel practice claim is not clearly

unreasonable. Id. at 158. The Board may grant the extension for any period that

it considers appropriate. 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(B); Special Counsel ex rel.

Waddell v. Department of Justice, 105 M.S.P.R. 208, ¶ 3 (2007).

¶5 In its fourth request for a 60-day extension of the existing stay, OSC asserts

that it has submitted a report of its findings, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(2)

(B), to the agency, the Board, and the Office of Personnel Management, finding

that Mr. McDaniel’s probationary termination constituted a prohibited personnel

practice in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9)(C). U-5 SRF, Tab 1 at

2, 6. OSC also asserts that the agency has communicated interest in resolving the

matter, and requests the extension to allow the parties an opportunity to negotiate

corrective action, and to allow time for the agency to complete its response to

OSC’s findings. Id. at 2.

4

¶6 Viewing the record in the light most favorable to OSC, and considering the

fact that the evidentiary record supporting OSC’s initial stay request does not

appear to have changed materially since the initial stay was granted, an extension

of the stay is not clearly unreasonable. See Special Counsel ex rel.

StephensonPino v. Department of the Navy, 97 M.S.P.R. 25, ¶¶ 5-6 (2004)

(granting a stay extension request when OSC’s record supporting its claim had

not changed, the agency did not oppose the extension request, and OSC

represented that the parties were making progress toward a settlement agreement) .

However, a separate determination must be made on the length of a requested

stay. Waddell, 105 M.S.P.R. 208, ¶ 5. It is the intent of Congress that stays not

be extended for long periods. Special Counsel v. Department of the Treasury ,

71 M.S.P.R. 419, 421 (1996). Moreover, the Board is obligated to press OSC to

present corrective action cases in a timely manner. Id. Here, OSC has made

significant progress, as it has completed its investigation, and submitted its report

of findings. U-5 SRF, Tab 1 at 2, 6. Furthermore, the agency has consented to

the extension, and it is beneficial to allow the parties an opportunity to resolve

this matter outside of litigation. Id. at 2; see Special Counsel v. Department of

Veterans Affairs, 46 M.S.P.R. 544, 545-46 (1991) (finding that an extension of a

stay to allow the parties time to attempt a resolution without litigation is not

clearly unreasonable). Accordingly, in light of these factors, we find that a 60-

day extension of the stay is warranted, and we therefore grant OSC’s request.

ORDER

¶7 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(B), a 60-day extension of the stay is

hereby GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that:

(1) The stay issued on April 10, 2023, is extended through and including

January 19, 2024, on the terms and conditions set forth in that Order;

(2) The agency shall not effect any changes in the relator’s duties or

responsibilities that are inconsistent with the relator’s salary or grade

5

level, or impose upon the relator any requirement which is not

required of other employees of comparable position, salary, or grade

level;

(3) Within 5 working days of this Order, the agency shall submit

evidence to the Clerk of the Board showing that it has complied with

this Order;

(4) Any request for an extension of this stay pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§ 1214(b)(1)(B) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.136(b) must be received by the

Clerk of the Board and the agency, together with any further

evidentiary support, on or before January 4, 2024; and

(5) Any comments on such a request that the agency wants the Board to

consider pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(b)(1)(C) and 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.136(b) must be received by the Clerk of the Board on or

before January 11, 2024.

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.