Carmencita Wilson v. Small Business Administration, 2024 MSPB 3

Carmencita Wilson, a GS-14 supervisory employee at the Small Business Administration, suffered a work-related injury in 2019 and sought leave and reasonable accommodation during her recovery.
Her supervisor denied most of her requests for sick leave, annual leave, and leave without pay, except for scheduled appointments, resulting in Wilson accruing 400 hours of AWOL (absent without leave).
Wilson was removed from her position in March 2020 for failure to follow supervisory instructions and AWOL, based on the same absences.
She challenged her removal to the MSPB, raising multiple affirmative defenses including disability, race, and sex discrimination; whistleblower reprisal; and retaliation for EEO/OIG complaints.
The administrative judge upheld her removal, merging the charges into AWOL and finding she failed to prove her defenses.
On review, the Board found the judge did not properly address whether leave denials were justified or provide Wilson with sufficient notice of her burdens of proof on discrimination and reprisal claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was AWOL charge proper where leave requests denied?	Wilson: Denials unjustified; requested leave.	SBA: Absences unauthorized, meriting AWOL.	Agency must prove leave denial was proper.
Disability/race/sex discrimination & retaliation	Wilson: Actions were motivated by discrimination; protected activity retaliation.	SBA: No evidence of discrimination or retaliation.	Plaintiff not given full opportunity; remand for full development of issues.
Notice of burdens/standards for proving discrimination	Wilson: Not fully informed of her burden/proof standards.	SBA: Argued Wilson failed to meet proof thresholds.	Appellant was not properly apprised; remand for clarification and proper procedure.
Correct legal standards in Title VII cases	Wilson: Sought fair application of Title VII; agency’s motives improper.	SBA: Defended managerial decisions as non-discriminatory.	Board clarified two standards: motivating factor and but-for causation, with burden-shifting only at but-for stage.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial evidence of discrimination)
University of Texas Southwest Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (sets but-for causation standard for Title VII retaliation claims)
Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (clarifies that discrimination playing any part in a federal sector employment decision is actionable)
Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (acknowledges mixed-motive discrimination and liability standards)
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (discusses pretext/but-for analysis for discrimination claims)