Danny Smith v. Department of the Treasury
DA-0752-23-0127-I-1
MSPBJun 14, 2024Background
- Danny Smith, an employee of the Department of the Treasury, was removed from his position due to sustained charges of inappropriate conduct involving four specifications.
- Smith filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), arguing against his removal and raising claims of race discrimination and harmful procedural error.
- An administrative judge found in favor of the agency, sustaining the inappropriate conduct charges, and rejected Smith's affirmative defenses.
- Smith petitioned for review, challenging, among other things, the credibility determinations of agency witnesses, the finding of no harmful procedural error, and for the first time, alleged a due process violation.
- The Board considered Smith's arguments but found no basis to disturb the administrative judge's rulings, affirmed the initial decision, and denied the petition for review.
- The order is nonprecedential and provides notice of appeal rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of Agency Witnesses | Judge erred in finding agency witnesses credible over Smith | Agency witnesses were credible; judge’s findings should stand | Special deference to judge's credibility findings; no error |
| Harmful Procedural Error: Right to Amend Statement | Should have been allowed to rescind/edit factfinding statement | Decision not affected by inability to edit statement | No harmful procedural error; decision would be unchanged |
| Harmful Procedural Error: Deciding Official | Fourth-line supervisor was improper as deciding official | Anti-harassment policy does not govern removal deciding official | Proper procedure followed; no harmful procedural error |
| Due Process Violation | New evidence introduced without chance to respond; violation | No valid due process claim; not raised timely, no new evidence | Not considered; not timely or based on new evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Purifoy v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 838 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (special deference given to demeanor-based credibility determinations)
- Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (credibility determinations based on witness demeanor are owed deference)
- Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98 (1997) (Board should not disturb well-reasoned credibility findings)
- Broughton v. Department of Health & Human Services, 33 M.S.P.R. 357 (1987) (same)