Opinion

Anwar Shaikh v. Smithsonian Institution

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Apr 12, 2024
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 15.8%

observing that, in addition to the right to due process, public employees are “entitled to whatever other procedural protections are afforded them by statute, regulation, or agency procedure”

How later courts described this case

observing that, in addition to the right to due process, public employees are “entitled to whatever other procedural protections are afforded them by statute, regulation, or agency procedure”
holding that the Board may overturn credibility determinations only when it has “sufficiently sound” reasons for doing so

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ANWAR SHAIKH, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DC-0752-18-0541-I-1

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, DATE: April 12, 2024

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Anwar Shaikh , Washington, D.C., pro se.

Amy Koontz and Katherine Bartell , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

affirmed his removal from the Federal service. Generally, we grant petitions such

as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains

erroneous 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

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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).

On review, the appellant has filed a motion to vacate the initial decision

and for a rehearing. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 2 at 3. He asserts that

he “suffered a medical issue in the courtroom prior to presenting [his] argument,”

which “prevented [him] from presenting [his] case.” Id. The appellant claims

that he alerted the administrative judge to his medical situation and that he was

unable to “present rebuttal” during the hearing. Id. Therefore, the appellant

argues that the “incomplete” and one-sided hearing did not provide him with due

process. Id. The appellant also argues that the administrative judge allowed an

unidentified “Agency representative” into the hearing room who spoke in private

with the administrative judge and that neither he nor the agency representative

were able to hear the conversations. Id. Finally, the appellant challenged the

lack of a “bailiff or other means of security” in the hearing room preventing the

witnesses from speaking to each other or the agency representative. Id.

In its substantive response opposing the petition for review, the agency

disputes the appellant’s “unsupported allegations” on review. PFR File, Tab 4

at 6. The agency representative states that she was present at the hearing and that

the appellant did not raise any medical issues with her or the administrative

judge. Id. In addition, the agency asserts that no agency representative spoke

privately with the administrative judge during the hearing. Id. Finally, the

agency states that the appellant made no allegation during the hearing that any of

the witnesses engaged in improper conduct. Id.

The oral recording made by a court reporter is the official transcript of a

hearing. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.53(a). Having reviewed the oral recording of the

hearing in its entirety, we find that the agency correctly asserted that the record

does not reflect any medical issues raised by the appellant and that, prior to

dismissing the witnesses, the administrative judge appropriately instructed each

witness not to discuss his or her testimony with any other individual while the

proceedings were ongoing. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 31, Hearing Compact

Disc (HCD); PFR File, Tab 4 at 6. During the course of the hearing, the appellant

provided testimony, examined his own witnesses, and cross-examined the

agency’s witnesses. HCD. To the extent that the appellant asserts that he raised

his alleged medical issue with the administrative judge off the record, his

conclusory statements on review provide no details regarding the nature of or

extent of any such discussion. PFR File, Tab 2 at 3. Moreover, the appellant has

failed to articulate any statutory, regulatory, or agency security or other

procedures with which the Board or the Smithsonian Institution failed to provide

him. See Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 179 F.3d 1368, 1378

(Fed. Cir. 1999) (observing that, in addition to the right to due process, public

employees are “entitled to whatever other procedural protections are afforded

them by statute, regulation, or agency procedure”). Therefore, we find that the

appellant has provided no basis for disturbing the initial decision. See 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.114(b) (stating that a petition for review must include all of the filing

party’s legal and factual arguments objecting to the initial decision, and must be

supported by references to applicable laws or regulations and by specific

references to the record).

Regarding the appellant’s assertion that the administrative judge engaged in

private conservations with an unidentified “Agency representative,” it is unclear

whether he claims this individual was a representative of the Smithsonian

Institution or the Board, given his statement that neither he nor the agency

representative could hear the conversations. PFR File, Tab 2 at 3. An ex parte

communication is an oral or written communication between a decision-making

official of the Board and an interested party to a proceeding when that

communication is made without providing the other parties to the appeal with a

chance to participate. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.101. Administrative judges are prohibited

from engaging in ex parte conversations regarding the merits of an appeal.

5 C.F.R. § 1201.102. To the extent that the appellant argues that the

administrative judge engaged in improper ex parte communications with a

representative for the Smithsonian Institution, we find that the record is devoid of

any evidence to support the appellant’s bare assertion. To the extent that the

appellant’s challenge concerns conversations between the administrative judge

and Board personnel, he has failed to articulate any prejudice or harm he suffered

by such communications in which neither party to the proceeding participated.

See Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (stating

that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights

provides no basis for reversal of an initial decision).

The appellant has not challenged, and we see no reason to disturb, the

administrative judge’s findings that the agency proved the charges of failure to

follow Smithsonian policy and lack of candor by preponderant evidence, 2 the

agency established a nexus between the appellant’s misconduct and the efficiency

of the service, the agency showed that the penalty of removal was reasonable, and

the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case that his removal action was

based on protected whistleblowing activity. PFR File, Tab 2 at 3; IAF, Tab 32,

Initial Decision at 3-11; see Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98,

105-06 (1997) (finding no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s findings

when she considered the evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and

A preponderance of the evidence is that 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. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).

made reasoned conclusions on issues of credibility); Broughton v. Department of

Health and Human Services, 33 M.S.P.R. 357, 359 (1987); see also Haebe v.

Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the

Board may overturn credibility determinations only when it has “sufficiently

sound” reasons for doing so).

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

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).

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, the

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.

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.

(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:

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. 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