Nathan Colodney v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3013
NATHAN COLODNEY,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent,
and
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Intervenor.
Nathan Colodney, pro se.
Jeffrey A. Gauger, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit
Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief
were B. Chad Bungard, General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel, Deputy General Counsel,
and Sara B. Rearden, Acting Associate General Counsel.
Claudia Burke, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for intervenor. With her on
the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board

-- 1 of 6 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3013
NATHAN COLODNEY,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent,
and
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Intervenor.
___________________________
DECIDED: July 17, 2007
___________________________
Before RADER, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board") dismissed Mr. Nathan J.
Colodney's claims that the Department of Health and Human Services improperly
terminated his Senior Executive Service ("SES") position of Director, Office of Health
Insurance Portability and Accounting Act ("HIPAA") Standards and that his subsequent
resignation from his GS-15 Health Insurance Specialist position was a constructive
removal. Nathan Colodney v. Department of Health and Human Services, MSPB
Docket No. PH-0752-06-0217-I-1 (Initial Decision, April 4, 2006; Final Order, August 15,
2006). Because the Board properly dismissed Mr. Colodney’s appeal for lack of

-- 2 of 6 --

jurisdiction, this court affirms.
I
On October 17, 2004, Mr. Colodney was appointed to the SES position of
Director, Office of HIPAA Standards. Mr. Colodney's initial appointment to this career
SES position would have become final only after he served a one-year probationary
period. See 5 U.S.C. § 3393(d). Based on staff complaints about inappropriate
comments, Mr. Colodney received an official notice, on December 22, 2004, of his
removal from the position. Effective December 26, 2004, Mr. Colodney was placed in a
GS-15 position as a Health Insurance Specialist. Mr. Colodney served in the GS-15
position until he resigned on May 20, 2005.
After his resignation, Mr. Colodney filed an equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint with the Agency alleging constructive removal and claims of sex
discrimination. The Agency found no discrimination and no intolerable work conditions
that forced his resignation. Mr. Colodney filed a timely appeal to the Board. Mr.
Colodney appealed both his removal from the SES position and his resignation from the
GS-15 position.
The administrative judge ("AJ") determined that the Board did not have
jurisdiction over the removal of a SES appointee during the one-year probationary
period. Initial Decision, slip op. at 2. The AJ also determined that the Board did not
have jurisdiction over Mr. Colodney's alleged involuntary resignation because Mr.
Colodney did not show intolerable working conditions leaving him no other choice but to
resign. Id., slip op. at 4. Thereafter, the Board denied Mr. Colodney's petition for
review. Mr. Colodney appealed to this court under 5 U.S.C. § 7703.
2007-3013 2

-- 3 of 6 --

II
The Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary, but rather limited to matters specifically
entrusted to it by law, rule or regulation. See 5. U.S.C. § 7701(a); Schmittling v. Dep’t of
the Army, 219 F.3d 1332, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Mr. Colodney has the burden of
establishing jurisdiction before the Board by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.56(a)(2); see Garcia v. Dep't of Homeland Security, 437 F.3d 1322, 1344 (Fed.
Cir. 2005)(en banc). Jurisdiction is a question of law that this court reviews without
deference. Fields v. Dep’t of Justice, 452 F.3d 1297, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board
enjoys no jurisdiction to review voluntary resignations. If a resignation is shown to be
involuntary; however, it may amount to a constructive removal which is within the
Board's jurisdiction. Shoaf v. Dep’t of Agric., 260 F.3d 1336, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The Board’s decision to dismiss Mr. Colodney's appeal must be affirmed unless
Mr. Colodney establishes that the decision is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures
required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by
substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Schmittling, 219 F.3d at 1335.
III
In this appeal, Mr. Colodney again focuses on both his removal from the SES
position and his alleged constructive removal from the GS-15 position. As the Board
correctly determined, it has no jurisdiction over the removal of a career SES appointee
during the one-year probationary period as specified in 5 C.F.R. § 359.407. Thus, the
Board did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Colodney's claim of improper termination from
his SES appointment because he was still within the one-year probationary period.
2007-3013 3

-- 4 of 6 --

With respect to the allegations of constructive removal, the AJ followed the
proper legal test and correctly examined the evidentiary record with respect to the
constructive removal claim. In effect, Mr. Colodney did not present any evidence
showing that his resignation was coerced. This court follows a three-part test to
determine when coercion makes a resignation involuntary: “(1) that one side
involuntarily accepted the terms of another; (2) that circumstances permitted no other
alternative; and (3) that said circumstances were the result of coercive acts of the
opposite party.” Middleton v. Dep’t of Def., 185 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(quoting Christie v. United States, 518 F.2d 584, 587 (1975)). “This test is an objective,
rather than subjective one; an employee’s subjective feelings are irrelevant. The
employee must present allegations of fact which, if proven, establish that a reasonable
employee confronted with the same circumstance would feel coerced into resigning.”
Id.
In his appeal to this court, Mr. Colodney focused much of his argument on facts
surrounding his removal from the SES position but provided virtually no information on
his alleged constructive removal. In this case, Mr. Colodney's removal from the SES
position during the probationary period and placement in a GS-15 position would
certainly not coerce a reasonable employee to resign. Mr. Colodney resigned
approximately five months after his GS-15 placement so he was able to work in the GS-
15 position for a number of months. Thus, the record supports the finding that
placement in the GS-15 position did not present Mr. Colodney with no alternative but to
resign. Mere allegations of an unpleasant work environment do not rise to the level of
forcing an employee to resign. With only limited facts surrounding the removal coupled
2007-3013 4

-- 5 of 6 --

2007-3013 5
with unsubstantiated allegations of intolerable working conditions, the Board properly
found that Mr. Colodney did not show that his resignation was involuntary.
Thus, the Board’s decision to dismiss Mr. Colodney’s appeal for lack of
jurisdiction was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or obtained without
procedures required by law, rule, or regulation. Accordingly, the Board’s decision
dismissing Mr. Colodney’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed.

-- 6 of 6 --