Yuriy Mikhaylov v. Dept. of Homeland Security

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 15, 2023
• Docket: 21-2429
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 11

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2429

YURIY B. MIKHAYLOV,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondent - Appellee.

On Petition for Review Appeal of an Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. (PH- 1221-21-0255-W-1)

Argued: October 27, 2022 Decided: March 15, 2023

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Morris Eli Fischer, MORRIS E. FISCHER, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Kelly A. Krystyniak, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; J. Douglas Whittaker, Office of the Chief Counsel, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Omaha, Nebraska, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 11

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 3 of 11

PER CURIAM:

Yuriy Mikhaylov, an employee of the Department of Homeland Security,

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE” or the “Agency”), petitions for review

from the final judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) rejecting his

claims under the Whistleblower Protection Act (the “WPA”) that the Agency took adverse

personnel actions against him in retaliation for his disclosures of misconduct. 1 Finding no

reversible error, we deny the petition for review.

I.

The WPA prohibits a federal agency from taking “a personnel action with respect

to any employee” because of the employee’s disclosure of information that the employee

reasonably believes shows a “violation of any law, rule, or regulation” or “gross

mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific

danger to public health or safety.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(8)(A)(i) & (ii).

To establish a prima facie whistleblower claim, the employee must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that:

(1) the acting official has the authority to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action; (2) the aggrieved employee made a protected disclosure; (3) the acting official used his authority to take, or refuse to take, a personnel action against the aggrieved employee; and (4) the protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency’s personnel action.

1 This case is a companion to the appeal in Case No. 21-1169, Mikhaylov v. Department of Homeland Security (“Mikhaylov I”), in which Mikhaylov challenges a separate disciplinary action that was initiated shortly before the actions at issue in this appeal. Our opinion in Mikhaylov I is also issued today.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 4 of 11

Flynn v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 877 F.3d 200, 204 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned

up). The employee may prove that the protected disclosure was a contributing factor

through circumstantial evidence, such as evidence that the personnel action was initiated

shortly after the official taking the action learned about the protected disclosures. See 5

U.S.C.A. § 1221(e)(1). Even if the disclosure was a contributing factor, however, the

employee is not entitled to corrective action if “the agency demonstrates by clear and

convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of

such disclosure.” 5 U.S.C.A. § 1221(e)(2); see Flynn, 877 F.3d at 204.

II.

Mikhaylov has worked for ICE since 1998. In 2018, Mikhaylov was serving as the

Assistant Field Office Director for the office in Baltimore, Maryland. Beginning in October

2018, Mikhaylov made a series of disclosures (the “Disclosures”) about possible

misconduct. The Disclosures are the same disclosures at issue in Mikhaylov I: In October

2018, Mikhaylov questioned Janean Ohin, a supervisor in the Baltimore office, about

reports that she had ignored a national list of qualified candidates so she could hire her

preferred job candidate. In December 2018, Mikhaylov filed a complaint with the Office

of Special Counsel. And in April 2019, Mikhaylov reported to his supervisors that an

Agency employee had been using an Agency vehicle for personal purposes.

In December 2018, one of Mikhaylov’s subordinates—referred to in the record as

“KR”—complained to Ohin that Mikhaylov had been sexually harassing and intimidating

her for several years. Ohin consulted with her supervisor, Field Office Director Diane

Witte, and with the Employee Labor Relations (“ELR”) office. At ELR’s instruction, Ohin 4 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 5 of 11

obtained more information from KR and reported the matter to the Joint Intake Committee,

as required by Agency policy.

In support of her claims, KR provided copies of emails she had exchanged with

Mikhaylov. The emails from Mikhaylov are unprofessional in tone and content, and they

demonstrate Mikhaylov’s frustrations with issues related to the employee’s pregnancy and

her needs after the baby was born. For example, after KR sent Mikhaylov an email referring

to recent events and asked him to stop insinuating that she was emotional because she was

pregnant and to treat her with respect, Mikhaylov responded,

As usual you are taking everything I say in your own way and always misstating what I do say to fit your picture. . . . I told [you] before and I’m going to say again on the record here -- I NEVER SAID ANYTHING about your pregnancy and never will. I am not that kind of person and do celebrate and welcome new life, to me that’s sacred. . . . If you are looking for confirmation of your future allegations about pregnancy discrimination, you are looking in the wrong place. Oh and my exact words were “Stop accusing me to me, saying what I didn’t say and just go before I say something and you will cry again” last part I do regret saying and I apologize, but you really did create a pattern on your own here with that one.

J.A. 104 (emphasis in original). Later, after the baby was born, KR sent Mikhaylov an

email telling him that if her office door is closed, it is often because she is pumping

breastmilk. She asked Mikhaylov to knock gently if her door was closed or, preferably, to

call or text first. She explained that loud banging on the door startles her, which can cause

her milk to stop flowing and interfere with pumping. Mikhaylov’s response was not

particularly polite or accommodating:

Pumping?!? That’s way too much info I want or need to see in the email [KR]. Especially, when I know I didn’t bang[] on your door and always use my fingers to knock on any door. I will try to call next time and summon you to my office instead, but if mission dictates immediate attention, tiptoeing

5 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 6 of 11

around your door is kind of too much to ask in the law enforcement setting[], don’t you think? So is making allegations that regular knocking on your door is inappropriate or somehow wrong.

JA 107.

The Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) began an investigation of KR’s

complaint. Under DHS policy governing harassment complaints, the Agency may take

certain “interim measures” if necessary while the investigation proceeds, including taking

action “to make sure that harassment does not continue while an inquiry is pending.” J.A.

277. At the direction of ELR’s chief counsel, Mikhaylov was reassigned to serve as

Assistant Field Director for the Agency’s Fugitive Operations Unit. In addition, Mikhaylov

was issued an order (drafted by ELR) directing him to have no contact with KR during the

pendency of the investigation.

In October 2019, OPR concluded its investigation. OPR determined that while

Mikhaylov had “made unprofessional, rude and demeaning comments” to KR, J.A. 323,

the evidence was insufficient to show that he had engaged in sexual harassment or

intimidation. The Agency thereafter issued a letter formally reprimanding Mikhaylov “for

exhibiting unprofessional conduct towards a subordinate employee.” J.A. 34. The Agency

described Mikhaylov’s emails to KR as unprofessional and improperly sarcastic and

reminded Mikhaylov that his job as a supervisor “is to defuse rather than to ignite the

situation by making unprofessional and/or sarcastic remarks or comments when

communicating with any employee.” J.A. 35. The Agency also reprimanded Mikhaylov

for disrespectful behavior towards his supervisor in a series of texts sent in April 2020 over

remote access to the Agency’s network at the beginning of the pandemic. The Agency

6 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 7 of 11

noted that the letter was “intended to impress upon [Mikhaylov] the seriousness of [his]

actions.” J.A. 36. The Agency stated that the letter would remain in his personnel folder

for two years.

Believing that the disciplinary actions taken against him were retaliation for the

Disclosures, Mikhaylov sought corrective action from the Board. See 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a).

Because the administrative judge had determined in Mikhaylov I that the Disclosures were

protected disclosures under the WPA, the Agency in this action stipulated that the

Disclosures were protected.

After conducting a hearing, the administrative judge concluded that the protected

Disclosures were contributing factors to the personnel actions, but that the Agency

nonetheless had proven by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same

personnel actions against Mikhaylov even if he had not made the Disclosures. See 5 U.S.C.

§ 1221(e)(2).

Applying the Carr factors, 2 the administrative judge determined that the only one

of the Agency officials involved in the challenged personnel actions who might have had

2 In Mikhaylov I, we adopted “the factors synthesized by the Federal Circuit in Carr v. Social Security Administration, 185 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999)” to help guide the determination of whether an agency has carried its burden of proving that it would have taken the same action. See Mikhaylov I, No. 21-1169, slip op. at 13. The Carr factors are:

the strength of the agency’s evidence in support of its personnel action; the existence and strength of any motive to retaliate on the part of the agency officials who were involved in the decision; and any evidence that the agency takes similar actions against employees who are not whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly situated.

(Continued) 7 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 8 of 11

a motive to retaliate was Janean Ohin, Mikhaylov’s supervisor, as her actions were the

focus of one of the Disclosures. Because there was no evidence of similarly situated

employees who were treated more favorably, the judge believed the case turned on “the

first Carr factor—the strength of the Agency’s case and the degree Ohin was actually

involved in making the relevant decisions.” J.A. 547.

The administrative judge noted that the investigation was triggered by the complaint

from KR and that there was no evidence she had any knowledge of Mikhaylov’s

whistleblowing activity. The judge concluded that the reassignment and no-contact order

were consistent with Agency policy and that the position to which Mikhaylov was

transferred was of “equal responsibility” as his position in the Baltimore field office. J.A

548. After reviewing all of the testimony, the administrative judge determined that Ohin

was not the ultimate decisionmaker on any of the challenged actions, nor did she attempt

to influence the decisions made by others.

As to the letter of reprimand, the administrative judge noted that the decision to

issue it was made by Francisco Madrigal, the supervisor with whom Mikhaylov had

exchanged the text messages, without input by any other manager. The administrative

judge concluded that because the emails and texts from Mikhaylov were clearly

unprofessional and disrespectful, Madrigal’s decision to issue the letter “is conclusively

supported by the record.” J.A. 551.

Carr, 185 F.3d at 1323.

8 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 9 of 11

The administrative judge therefore upheld the Agency’s actions and denied the

corrective action sought by Mikhaylov. The administrative judge’s decision became the

final decision of the Board on October 29, 2021. This appeal followed.

III.

Our review of the Board’s decision in whistleblower cases is very limited. “We may

only set aside agency actions, findings, or conclusions if they are (1) arbitrary, capricious,

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without

procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported

by substantial evidence.” Flynn, 877 F.3d at 204 (cleaned up).

Mikhaylov argues on appeal that the Board erred by concluding that the Agency had

proven that it would have taken the same actions even if Mikhaylov had not made the

disclosures. According to Mikhaylov, the administrative judge’s decision was arbitrary and

capricious and not supported by substantial evidence because the judge failed to consider

relevant evidence and improperly ignored conflicts in the testimony of Agency witnesses.

We disagree.

Mikhaylov’s appellate arguments largely focus on his own testimony, which he

contends the administrative judge improperly disregarded, and his own view of the facts.

These arguments simply ignore the standard of review. For example, Mikhaylov points to

confusing (and partially contradictory) testimony from Diane Witte about her involvement

in the personnel actions, and he complains that the administrative judge “t[ook] it upon

himself” to explain away any inconsistencies. Brief of Appellant at 10. That, of course, is

precisely what the finder of fact is supposed to do—assess witness credibility, weigh the 9 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 10 of 11

evidence, and reconcile conflicting testimony. It simply is not the job of this court to

second-guess those decisions. See Shinaberry v. Saul, 952 F.3d 113, 123 (4th Cir. 2020)

(“[W] e do not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations,

or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ.”). Similarly, the administrative judge, who

found Mikhaylov’s credibility to be limited, was not required to accept Mikhaylov’s

unsupported assertion that Ohin coached KR into filing the complaint or his vague claim

(without names or details) that other employees had not been reassigned during an

investigation.

The record supports the administrative judge’s conclusions that the Agency was

following policy when it reassigned Mikhaylov, that Ohin was the only manager who might

have motive to retaliate, and that Ohin was not the decisionmaker for any of the challenged

actions. These facts, combined with the obvious inappropriateness of Mikhaylov’s email

and text communications, in turn support the administrative judge’s ultimate conclusion

that the Agency proved that it would have taken the same actions even if Mikhaylov had

not made the Disclosures. See Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)

(“[W]hatever the meaning of ‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for such

evidentiary sufficiency is not high. Substantial evidence . . . is more than a mere scintilla.

It means—and means only—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion.”) (cleaned up).

IV.

Because the administrative judge committed no legal error and his factual findings

are supported by substantial evidence, we hereby deny Mikhaylov’s petition for review. 10 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2429 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 11 of 11

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED