Staley v. DVA
20-2127
| Fed. Cir. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Staley, a VA rating veterans service representative, informed the VA she had filed an OSC complaint after the agency initiated a proposed removal in Oct. 2018; the VA agreed to stay the removal.
- The VA had previously approved Staley’s FMLA leave; while her OSC complaint was pending the VA re-reviewed the FMLA after seeing her in the office on a day she was on leave and concluded the supporting medical documentation was insufficient to show a serious health condition.
- The VA offered Staley 14 days to submit updated medical evidence or elect other leave and offered meetings to discuss deficiencies; she did not provide additional documentation or meet, and the VA converted her prior FMLA leave to AWOL but said it would not take disciplinary action based on that AWOL.
- Staley filed an IRA with the MSPB alleging retaliation for protected activity; following a hearing the Board found a prima facie case but concluded the VA proved by clear and convincing evidence it would have revoked the FMLA leave absent the protected activity.
- Staley appealed, raising substantial-evidence, due-process, discovery, and counsel-disqualification arguments; the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board, finding its factual findings and application of the Carr factors supported by substantial evidence and no reversible procedural error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency met its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence it would have taken the same personnel action absent protected activity (Carr factors) | Staley: Board’s conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence | VA: Re-review was reasonably triggered by her office appearance; documentation was insufficient; offered chance to cure; comparator provided docs | Affirmed — Board reasonably applied Carr factors and VA proved by clear and convincing evidence it would have revoked FMLA leave |
| Whether FMLA documentation/ privacy objections defeated the revocation | Staley: Her medical info was sufficiently general; agency’s request was an improper privacy invasion | VA: Documentation did not establish a ‘‘serious health condition’’ or inability to perform essential functions; agency may request clarification | Held — Agency properly required adequate information to determine FMLA eligibility and revocation was justified absent sufficient proof |
| Whether agency or Board violated due process or abused discretion on discovery/evidentiary rulings or counsel disqualification | Staley: Denial of discovery, late disclosure, and counsel conflict denied due process | VA/Board: Board’s procedural rulings were within discretion; no conflict or fact-witness status for counsel | Held — Rejected; Board did not commit reversible error and acted within its discretion |
| Whether comparator evidence showed disparate treatment | Staley: Other employees were treated differently | VA: Comparator provided requested documentation; noncompliance distinguishes Staley | Held — Board reasonably found comparator evidence did not show disparate treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Berlin v. Dep’t of Labor, 772 F.3d 890 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (definition and standard for substantial evidence)
- Pope v. U.S. Postal Serv., 114 F.3d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (standard for reviewing credibility findings)
- King v. Dep’t of Navy, 130 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (review of Board legal determinations is de novo)
- Whitmore v. Dep’t of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (burden-shifting and evaluation of contributing-factor claims)
- Carr v. Social Sec. Admin., 185 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (three-factor framework for determining whether agency would have acted absent protected activity)
- Smith v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 930 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (inquiry focuses on whether agency would have acted the same absent whistleblowing)