NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-3303
VERLYN E. RICHARDS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent.
Verlyn E. Richards, of Southfield, Michigan, pro se.
Joyce G. Friedman, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States
Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the
brief were B. Chad Bungard, General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel, Deputy General
Counsel, and Sara B. Rearden, Acting Associate General Counsel.
Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-3303
VERLYN E. RICHARDS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent.
__________________________
DECIDED: May 11, 2007
__________________________
Before MAYER, BRYSON and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Verlyn E. Richards appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board,
dismissing her appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Richards v. Dep’t of the
Army, CH-0752-05-0883-I-1 (MSPB May 12, 2006). Because Richards has failed to set
out any allegation that, if true, would establish involuntary resignation, we affirm.
Richards contends that her decision to retire was the product of improper agency
action, coercion, duress, intolerable working conditions, and agency misinformation.
Each contention, however, is without merit. Because her position required a security
clearance, it was not improper for the agency to indefinitely suspend her based on the
revocation of her clearance, pending its investigation of the issue. Any role that her
suspension had in giving rise to unpleasant financial conditions cannot, therefore,
support a finding that her resignation was involuntary. Next, substantial evidence
supports the board’s determination that her allegations of workplace harassment and
mistreatment do not establish coercion, intolerable working conditions, or duress. This
is especially so given that, due to her suspension, Richards had not worked at the
agency in several months, thereby diminishing any causal connection between her
working environment and her decision to retire. Finally, Richards has failed to make
any specific allegation that could support a finding that agency misinformation gave rise
to her resignation.
2006-3303 2