Background - Lentz, a federal botanist and disabled veteran, received a reprimand (May 2014) and a proposed 14‑day suspension (Nov. 2014); the suspension was sustained while he was on medical leave. - Lentz resigned Feb. 13, 2015, alleging harassment, a hostile work environment, disability discrimination, USERRA retaliation, and that his illness aggravated by work conditions made resignation involuntary (constructive discharge). - He appealed to the MSPB claiming constructive discharge and USERRA violations; the AJ bifurcated the matters into two proceedings (Lentz I and Lentz II) and limited evidence in each. - Lentz I was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the AJ and full Board then applied collateral estoppel in Lentz II to bar relitigation of voluntariness and dismissed Lentz II for lack of jurisdiction without resolving the totality of evidence. - The Federal Circuit found the MSPB erred by (1) improperly bifurcating the proceedings and (2) applying collateral estoppel such that the Board failed to consider the totality of evidence on constructive discharge; the Board’s dismissal was vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration of voluntariness with all relevant evidence. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Whether Lentz’s resignation was involuntary (constructive discharge) | Resignation was coerced by combined hostile treatment, discipline, retaliation and failure to accommodate his disability/USERRA-protected activity | Resignation was voluntary; jurisdiction lacking because nonfrivolous allegations of coercion were not shown | Vacated and remanded — Board must consider totality of evidence to decide voluntariness | | Whether the MSPB properly bifurcated the appeal and segregated evidence | Bifurcation diluted the combined weight of evidence and denied full, fair adjudication | Bifurcation and earlier dismissal justified limiting issues and applying collateral estoppel | Court held bifurcation was improper and prejudicial; must be reconsidered on remand | | Whether collateral estoppel barred relitigation of voluntariness in Lentz II | Collateral estoppel was inapplicable because Lentz I did not adjudicate the same consolidated constructive discharge claim on the full record | MSPB/Agency argued identical issue was previously litigated and preclusive | Collateral estoppel did not apply because issues were not identical given the separation of evidence; Board erred in applying it | | Whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper without full record development | Dismissal occurred before Lentz could develop record; AJ denied consideration of many submitted documents | Agency urged dismissal for lack of jurisdiction based on nonfrivolous-allegation standard | Dismissal was procedurally flawed; remand required to permit full consideration of allegations and evidence | ### Key Cases Cited McCormick v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 307 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (plenary review of Board jurisdictional determinations) Parrott v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 519 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.) (substantial‑evidence standard for Board factual findings in jurisdictional inquiry) Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (reasonableness of agency factfinding standard) Perlman v. United States, 490 F.2d 928 (Ct. Cl.) (examining surrounding circumstances to test voluntariness of resignation) Scharf v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 710 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir.) (duress vitiates voluntariness of resignation) McGucken v. United States, 407 F.2d 1349 (Ct. Cl.) (same principle on coercion) Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (agency decisionmaking must be logical and adequately explained) Kline v. Dep’t of Transp., FAA, 808 F.2d 43 (Fed. Cir.) (agency must identify, balance, and consider relevant evidence) * DeLaughter v. U.S. Postal Serv., 3 F.3d 1522 (Fed. Cir.) (remand where agency failed to follow appellate review procedure)