Cynthia A. Metivier v. Department of the Interior
Background
- Appellant Cynthia Metivier, a GS-0905-15 Attorney‑Advisor in the Office of Hearings and Appeals (WELSA unit), was separated by reduction in force (RIF) after the agency closed the WELSA office due to budget cuts from sequestration.
- Appellant challenged the RIF as pretextual and alleged personal targeting, sex discrimination, reprisal for whistleblowing and EEO activity, miscalculation of service computation date, wrong competitive area, denial of career‑transition assistance, and improper nonselection for other positions.
- Administrative Judge (AJ) held a hearing, found the RIF bona fide (budgetary reorganization), and upheld the agency’s retention, competitive area, and service computation date calculations; AJ also found appellant failed to prove discrimination or retaliation claims.
- Appellant raised procedural objections: alleged agency misconduct toward witnesses and sought sanctions; requested additional witnesses (deciding officials); and argued credibility errors by the AJ. The AJ denied or excluded those requests; the written record did not show a ruling on the sanctions motion.
- The Board denied review: it found any failure to rule on sanctions was harmless (no prejudice), the AJ did not abuse discretion in excluding witnesses, the RIF decision was within agency management discretion and supported by evidence, and discrimination/retaliation claims were unproven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of RIF / bona fide reason | RIF was pretextual and targeted Metivier | Agency reorganized/closed WELSA due to sequestration and budgetary FTE cuts | Held for agency: RIF was bona fide and reorganization reasonable |
| Application of RIF procedures (competitive area, retention, SCD) | Agency misapplied competitive area, miscomputed SCD, denied CTAP | Agency properly defined area, computed SCD, and applied retention rules | Held for agency: calculations and competitive area proper |
| Witness sanctions / counsel misconduct | Agency threatened/coerced witnesses; sanctions and disqualification warranted | Allegations do not show intimidation or prejudicial conduct | Held: no basis for sanctions; any failure to rule harmless (no prejudice) |
| Discrimination and retaliation claims (sex, EEO activity, whistleblowing) | Supervisor’s actions, adverse performance appraisals, and discipline show animus/retaliation | Actions were nondiscriminatory management decisions tied to reorganization and performance | Held: appellant failed to prove discrimination or retaliation as motivating factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarrard v. Department of Justice, 113 M.S.P.R. 502 (Board 2010) (failure to rule on motion may be harmless if no prejudice)
- Bernstein v. Department of the Army, 82 M.S.P.R. 375 (1999) (sanctions and adverse inferences available for misconduct but require proof of intimidation)
- West v. U.S. Postal Service, 44 M.S.P.R. 551 (1990) (standards for witness intimidation and contumacious conduct)
- Waksman v. Department of Commerce, 37 M.S.P.R. 640 (1988) (agency has discretion in selecting positions to abolish during RIF)
- Einboden v. Department of the Navy, 802 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (courts recognize furloughs and similar actions as reasonable management responses to budgetary constraints)
- Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612 (2015) (evidentiary standards for proving discrimination; use of circumstantial/mosaic evidence)