Charles K. Olaniyi v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Background
- The Department of Veterans Affairs demoted Charles Olaniyi from GS-12 Supervisory Medical Technologist to GS-11 for delay in carrying out supervisory duties, based on 15 specifications alleging failures to ensure laboratory quality control data was within acceptable ranges (late Apr–Jun 2015).
- Olaniyi appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), claiming the demotion was retaliatory for prior EEO complaints and contesting the findings and penalty; an administrative judge sustained 12 of 15 specifications, found the charge proved, rejected the retaliation claim, and upheld the demotion as reasonable.
- Olaniyi filed a petition for review that was untimely (filed 5 days late after an extension); he sought waiver explaining confusion over a denied request to exceed the 30-page limit and asserted he filed a 57‑page petition timely by mail.
- The Board considered factors for excusing lateness (length of delay, pro se status, receipt timing) and ultimately accepted the otherwise-untimely petition because Olaniyi promptly filed a page‑limit compliant petition after receiving the Clerk’s letter and his arguments failed on the merits.
- On the merits, the administrative judge found: concentrating QC responsibilities on Olaniyi did not excuse his supervisory duty; understaffing and environmental issues complicated QC but did not show actual inability to perform duties; delegation restrictions were consistent with management directives and bargaining rules; prior letters and a performance-improvement plan were relevant and did not create excusing harassment.
- The deciding official reasonably considered Douglas factors, patient‑safety implications of QC lapses, Olaniyi’s prior 7‑day suspension, limited federal service, loss of supervisory confidence, and the agency table of penalties, and the Board found the demotion within tolerable limits of reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition for review / waiver of deadline | Olaniyi said mailing and Clerk’s denial of page‑extension caused delay and he filed a 57‑page petition timely | Agency moved to dismiss as untimely; Board procedures require showing good cause/due diligence | Board accepted the late petition under the circumstances (pro se, prompt compliant filing) but only because appellant’s merits arguments failed |
| Substance of charge — delay in supervisory QC duties | Olaniyi said he shouldn’t be responsible for QC failures on other shifts, was understaffed, and environmental problems prevented timely QC management | Agency said concentrating QC responsibility on Olaniyi didn’t excuse failure; he had duty to monitor trends and direct corrective actions | Board/aj: Agency proved majority of specifications; staffing and environmental issues did not excuse failure to perform supervisory QC duties |
| Retaliation (EEO) claim | Olaniyi alleged demotion was retaliation for filing EEO complaints and prior discipline was retaliatory | Agency maintained action was for performance-related delay and prior discipline is a matter of record | Board: Olaniyi failed to prove retaliation; review of prior discipline for retaliation is out of scope absent showing it was clearly erroneous |
| Penalty appropriateness | Olaniyi argued demotion excessive and Douglas factors misapplied | Agency showed the deciding official considered Douglas factors, patient‑safety risks, prior suspension, and table of penalties | Board: Demotion promotes efficiency; penalty within tolerable limits of reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaetos v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 121 M.S.P.R. 201 (MSPB 2014) (good‑cause waiver standard for untimely filings)
- Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180 (MSPB 1980) (due‑diligence standard for timeliness waivers)
- Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60 (MSPB 1995) (factors for determining good cause for delay)
- Summers v. U.S. Postal Service, 87 M.S.P.R. 403 (MSPB 2000) (delays of 15 days–1 month are significant for timeliness)
- Powell v. U.S. Postal Service, 122 M.S.P.R. 60 (MSPB 2014) (Board reviews penalty for reasonableness and whether agency considered relevant factors)
- Mills v. U.S. Postal Service, 119 M.S.P.R. 482 (MSPB 2013) (electronic service/receipt rules)
- Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268 (MSPB 1980) (new arguments on review require new and material evidence)
- Bolling v. Department of the Air Force, 9 M.S.P.R. 335 (MSPB 1981) (limitations on reviewing prior disciplinary actions)