Laura Holman v. Department of Energy
Background
- Appellant Laura Holman, a GS-12 accountant at the Department of Energy’s Southwestern Power Administration, was removed effective November 21, 2014 for failure to follow established leave procedures and unauthorized absence after exhausting FMLA leave while caring for her disabled son.
- She was carried in LWOP from June 30–August 3, 2014, received return-to-duty warnings (including a July 21 letter and a September 17 AWOL notice), failed to report as ordered, and received a notice of proposed removal on October 7, 2014; removal followed after her oral response and Douglas-factor consideration.
- Holman appealed to the MSPB alleging disability discrimination (her own and by association), pregnancy discrimination, sex-based hostile work environment, reprisal for EEO activity, and whistleblower retaliation.
- The administrative judge merged the absence-based charges, conducted a hearing, found the agency proved the merged charge, and rejected Holman’s affirmative defenses based on credibility findings and lack of corroborating evidence.
- On review, the Board denied Holman’s petition: it found she admitted the absences and incomplete leave requests, failed to prove discrimination or reprisal by preponderant evidence, and that the agency established nexus and that removal was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Holman’s Argument | DOE’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency proved failure to follow leave procedures/unauthorized absence | Holman disputed the fairness but acknowledged FMLA exhausted and did not complete leave paperwork | Agency showed incomplete leave request, AWOL periods, warnings, and a proposed removal followed proper process | Held: Agency proved the merged charge; removal affirmed |
| Disability discrimination (own condition) | Holman claimed her disability caused absences and needed accommodation | Agency relied on medical records showing limitations ended by Nov 2013 and that 2014 absences were not caused by disability | Held: Holman failed to show disability caused 2014 absences; discrimination claim denied |
| Discrimination by association, pregnancy, and sex hostile-work-environment | Holman pointed to EEO filings and past incidents as motive/evidence | Agency argued incidents were remote, not corroborated, and explanations were non‑pretextual | Held: Claims unsupported by record; incidents too remote or unproven; no pretext established |
| Reprisal/whistleblower retaliation | Holman alleged prior EEO/whistleblower activity motivated removal | Agency showed deciding official lacked knowledge of disclosures; even absent that test, agency’s reasons were strong and would have led to removal | Held: Holman failed to show protected activity was a contributing factor; removal would have occurred regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- Marques v. Department of Health & Human Services, 22 M.S.P.R. 129 (1984) (administrative judge’s failure to mention every piece of evidence does not mean it was not considered)
- Tarpley v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 579 (1988) (failure to timely object to hearing rulings waives issue on review)
- Karapinka v. Department of Energy, 6 M.S.P.R. 124 (1981) (procedural error requires showing adverse effect on substantive rights)
- Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612 (2015) (evidentiary discussion for discrimination claims)
- Gardner v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 123 M.S.P.R. 647 (2016) (evidence in discrimination claims evaluated as a whole)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (all evidence evaluated together in discrimination analysis)
- Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (deference to credibility findings based on witness demeanor)
- Stiles v. Department of Homeland Security, 116 M.S.P.R. 263 (2011) (contributing-factor and alternative evidence for retaliation claims)
- Whitmore v. Department of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (analysis of clear-and-convincing proof when contributing factor established)