Michael Shen v. Department of the Army

CourtMerit Systems Protection Board
DecidedMay 30, 2024
DocketCH-0432-20-0544-I-1
StatusUnpublished

This text of Michael Shen v. Department of the Army (Michael Shen v. Department of the Army) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Merit Systems Protection Board primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michael Shen v. Department of the Army, (Miss. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MICHAEL Z. SHEN, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, CH-0432-20-0544-I-1

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DATE: May 30, 2024 Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Michael Z. Shen , Troy, Michigan, pro se.

Tiffany J. Hall , Warren, Michigan, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which reversed the appellant’s removal for unacceptable performance under the agency’s demonstration project and found that the appellant had proven national origin discrimination. On petition for review, the agency disputes the finding that it did not provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to improve. The agency also asserts that the administrative judge erred in finding that the appellant’s supervisor displayed a bias against the appellant’s national origin. Generally, we 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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

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 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. 2 Except as expressly MODIFIED to apply the correct standards for proving a claim of national origin discrimination, we AFFIRM the initial decision. ¶2 In finding that the appellant proved discrimination based on national origin, the administrative judge relied upon the standard set forth in Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612, ¶¶ 36-37 (2015), overruled in part by Pridgen v. Office of Management and Budget , 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 23-25. Initial Appeal File, Tab 105 at 30-31, 33-34. Since the issuance of the initial decision, however, the Board has issued Pridgen, which clarified and overruled Savage, and Wilson v. Small Business Administration, 2024 MSPB 3, which otherwise

2 The appellant has filed a petition for enforcement of the administrative judge’s interim relief order. Petition for Review File, Tab 4. The Board will not entertain a petition for enforcement of an interim relief order before a final decision is issued; rather, it will treat such a petition as a motion to dismiss the agency’s petition for review. See Johnson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2023 MSPB 9, ¶ 7. Here, the agency returned the appellant to his position effective September 1, 2022, has since been paying him, and has advised him that it intended to process his back pay and associated benefits effective the date of the initial decision. Under these circumstances, we decline to dismiss the agency’s petition for review. Upon issuance of this final Board order, however, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the regional office, in accordance with the order below, if he still believes that the agency has not provided full interim relief. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(g). 3

clarified the burdens of proof in Title VII disparate treatment discrimination claims that arise before the Board. Upon consideration of the facts of this case under the standards set forth in those more recent cases, we find that the outcome of this appeal would be the same as that arrived at by the administrative judge.

ORDER ¶3 We ORDER the agency to cancel the appellant’s removal and to restore the appellant effective October 15, 2018. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no later than 20 days after the date of this decision. ¶4 We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due, and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision. ¶5 We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b). ¶6 No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not 4

fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a). ¶7 For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be made within the 60-day period set forth above.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

John H. Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts
726 F.2d 730 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Marguerite Pridgen v. Office of Management and Budget
2022 MSPB 31 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2022)
Kenneth Johnson v. Department of Veterans Affairs
2023 MSPB 9 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2023)
Carmencita Wilson v. Small Business Administration
2024 MSPB 3 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Shen v. Department of the Army, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-shen-v-department-of-the-army-mspb-2024.