throbber
Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 06/15/2020
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`STEVEN J. OLIVA,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
`Respondent
`______________________
`
`2019-1990
`______________________
`
`Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
`Board in No. DA-1221-17-0225-P-1.
`______________________
`
`Decided: June 15, 2020
`______________________
`
`JENNIFER CIELUCH, Covington & Burling LLP, New
`York, NY, argued for petitioner. Also represented by HAN
`PARK, RICHARD L. RAINEY, Washington, DC.
`
` IGOR HELMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
`vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
`DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by JOSEPH H.
`HUNT, TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.
` ______________________
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 06/15/2020
`
`2
`
`OLIVA v. DVA
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, MAYER and DYK, Circuit
`Judges.
`Opinion of the court filed PER CURIAM.
`Opinion concurring in part filed by Chief Judge PROST.
`PER CURIAM.
`
`Steven J. Oliva appeals a decision by the Merit Sys-
`tems Protection Board (“Board”). We affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`Mr. Oliva worked as an Associate Director of Pharmacy
`Customer Care at the Department of Veterans Affairs
`(“VA”) Health Resource Center in Waco, Texas. In a series
`of emails beginning on December 30, 2014, Mr. Oliva ac-
`cused his supervisor of preselecting an applicant for a po-
`sition at the agency, which his supervisor contested as an
`allegation that he had acted improperly. On January 9,
`2015, the agency issued Mr. Oliva a letter of reprimand for
`“Inappropriate Conduct.” J.A. 2–3.
`On March 13, 2017, Mr. Oliva filed an individual right
`of action alleging that the agency’s issuance of the retalia-
`tory letter of reprimand was a prohibited personnel action
`under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C.
`§ 2302(b)(8). Mr. Oliva sought damages for: (1) lost reloca-
`tion incentive pay for a job he alleges he would have re-
`ceived in El Paso absent the letter of reprimand,1 (2) non-
`
`
`1 Mr. Oliva is also seeking damages for loss of the El
`Paso position in a Claims Court case on a different theory—
`that the agency breached a settlement agreement by dis-
`seminating information about the letter of reprimand. Our
`decision in that case is being issued contemporaneously in
`Oliva v. United States, No. 19-2059.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 06/15/2020
`
`OLIVA v. DVA
`
`3
`
`pecuniary damages for emotional harm.2 The Board found
`that the agency had taken a prohibited personnel action
`against Mr. Oliva because it perceived him to be a whistle-
`blower, its perception was a contributing factor to the issu-
`ance of the letter of reprimand, and the agency had not
`shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have
`issued the letter of reprimand absent its perception of Mr.
`Oliva as a whistleblower. The Board awarded Mr. Oliva
`$3,500 in emotional harm damages. The Board denied
`damages for loss of the El Paso opportunity. Mr. Oliva ap-
`peals, and we have
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1295(a)(9).
`
`DISCUSSION
`The scope of our review of the Board decision is limited
`by statute. We may only set aside Board decisions that are
`“(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-
`wise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pro-
`cedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
`followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
`5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).
`Mr. Oliva argues that the Board should have awarded
`him more damages. The Board may award “foreseeable
`consequential damages” and “compensatory damages” in a
`corrective action for a Whistleblower Protection Act claim.
`5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A).
`Mr. Oliva argues that the Board erred when it denied
`him damages for lost relocation incentive pay. Mr. Oliva
`asserted that the agency’s issuance of the letter of repri-
`mand caused him not to be selected for a position at the VA
`Medical Center in El Paso, Texas. Mr. Oliva asserted that
`if he had been selected, he would have received relocation
`
`2 Mr. Oliva also asserted other theories of relief,
`which the Board denied. Mr. Oliva does not challenge
`those aspects of the Board’s decision on appeal.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 06/15/2020
`
`4
`
`OLIVA v. DVA
`
`incentive pay. The Board rejected this theory, in part be-
`cause Mr. Oliva had failed to show a causal relationship
`between the issuance of the letter of reprimand and his al-
`leged loss of relocation incentive pay. In other words, it
`was not foreseeable that the issuance of the letter of repri-
`mand would have resulted in its disclosure during Mr.
`Oliva’s employment application process. We discern no er-
`ror in the Board’s conclusion that Mr. Oliva had not estab-
`lished that his lost relocation incentive pay was a
`foreseeable consequence of the issuance of the letter of rep-
`rimand. See Bohac v. Dep’t of Agric., 239 F.3d 1334, 1340–
`41 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that damages for a whistle-
`blower claim are “akin” to contract damages, which are
`rooted in the common law doctrine of foreseeability).
`Mr. Oliva also argues that he was entitled to more com-
`pensatory damages for emotional harm. The Board found
`that Mr. Oliva “established he experienced emotional harm
`as a result of the letter of reprimand.” J.A. 14. “[B]ased on
`the record and taking into account the severity and dura-
`tion of the appellant’s emotional distress and pain related
`to the . . . letter of reprimand,” the Board awarded Mr.
`Oliva $3,500 in compensatory damages. J.A. 16. The
`Board’s award was supported by substantial evidence, and
`we see no error of law.
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 06/15/2020
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`STEVEN J. OLIVA,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
`Respondent
`______________________
`
`2019-1990
`______________________
`
`Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
`Board in No. DA-1221-17-0225-P-1.
`______________________
`PROST, Chief Judge, concurring in part.
`I join the per curiam opinion in full but write sepa-
`rately because I would affirm the Board’s decision to deny
`Mr. Oliva damages for lost relocation incentive pay for an
`additional reason that the per curiam decision does not
`reach. The record establishes that the lost relocation in-
`centive pay was available, but not guaranteed, to be offered
`to the selectee of the Associate Medical Director position
`for which Mr. Oliva applied but was not selected. The
`Board found that Mr. Oliva failed to prove by preponderant
`evidence that he would have received this incentive even if
`he had been selected for the position. J.A. 6–8. Indeed, the
`only documentary evidence submitted
`to support
`Mr. Oliva’s claim, merely shows that the selectee for the
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1990 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 06/15/2020
`
`2
`
`OLIVA v. DVA
`
`position was offered a different incentive, which Mr. Oliva
`admits would not have been applicable to him. See J.A. 7–
`8; J.A. 69; see also Appellant’s Reply Br. 14. On appeal,
`Mr. Oliva has not identified any additional evidence
`demonstrating that he would have been offered the reloca-
`tion incentive if he had been selected for the position. See
`Appellant’s Op. Br. 21. Without such evidence, for this ad-
`ditional reason, I would affirm the Board’s denial of dam-
`ages based on lost relocation incentive pay.
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket