Garth K. Trinkl v. Department of Commerce
Background
- Appellant Garth K. Trinkl, formerly an Economist at DOC, retired effective January 10, 2015 and appealed to the MSPB on Feb 25, 2016 claiming his retirement was involuntary due to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile/dangerous work environment.
- He alleged supervisory threats and a “near physical attack” (variously dated to late 2013/early 2014) and that the agency denied his requests to be reassigned to a safe workspace.
- Agency moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing Trinkl failed to nonfrivolously allege coercion, misrepresentation, or other agency action rendering retirement involuntary.
- Administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; Board denied review petition, modified the decision to address voluntariness and discrimination allegations to the extent relevant, and affirmed dismissal.
- Board held that Trinkl did not nonfrivolously allege that (1) agency deception or coercion caused his retirement, or (2) working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in his position would have felt compelled to retire; his PTSD/accommodation and reassignment claims were not shown to have been raised as an accommodation request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSPB has jurisdiction over Trinkl's retirement as involuntary due to coercion or misrepresentation | Trinkl: retirement was involuntary because of supervisory threats, a near-physical attack, and agency refusal to reassign him | Agency: Trinkl failed to nonfrivolously allege coercion, deception, or other improper agency action making retirement involuntary | Held: No jurisdiction — allegations do not nonfrivolously establish coercion or misrepresentation overcoming presumption of voluntariness |
| Whether working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would be compelled to retire | Trinkl: threats/near-physical attack and prior violent incidents made workplace unsafe and intolerable | Agency: incidents were isolated, temporally distant, and insufficient to render conditions intolerable as a matter of law | Held: Allegations, even if true, do not show a course of conduct making conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to retire |
| Whether agency denied reasonable accommodation for appellant’s PTSD (reassignment/avoidance of supervisors) | Trinkl: PTSD aggravated by agency violence; agency refused reassignment or accommodation, forcing retirement | Agency: record lacks evidence that Trinkl requested accommodation for PTSD; requests were framed as reassignment tied to investigations and safety, not disability accommodation | Held: No nonfrivolous allegation of denial of reasonable accommodation; failure to allege accommodation request undermines this claim |
| Whether placement on PIP or agency’s post-notice conduct rendered retirement involuntary | Trinkl: PIP and agency’s failure to contact him after notice of involuntary retirement contributed to coercion | Agency: PIP and communication failures are not coercive acts that render retirement involuntary | Held: PIP and lack of contact do not amount to intolerable conditions or coercion sufficient to overcome voluntariness presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 609 (presumption of voluntary retirement; requirement to tie retirement to agency coercion or deception)
- SanSoucie v. Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R. 149 (coercive acts or misinformation can overcome voluntariness)
- Vitale v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 107 M.S.P.R. 501 (standard: reasonable person in employee’s position would feel compelled to retire)
- Pickens v. Social Security Administration, 88 M.S.P.R. 525 (Board considers discrimination/reprisal only as relevant to voluntariness)
- Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281 (nonprejudicial adjudicatory error does not warrant reversal)
- Searcy v. Department of Commerce, 114 M.S.P.R. 281 (temporal gap between alleged coercion and retirement undercuts involuntariness claim)
- Terban v. Department of Energy, 216 F.3d 1021 (verbal confrontations generally insufficient to overcome voluntariness presumption)
- Miller v. Department of Defense, 85 M.S.P.R. 310 (ordinary stressful or unpleasant working conditions, criticism, or PIPs generally not intolerable enough to compel resignation)