Background
Saeed Tavakkol, a United States Postal Service employee, alleged he was subjected to harassment based on national origin, race, and religion, and faced retaliation for whistleblowing. After experiencing medical issues and failing to provide updated medical documentation, he was placed on absent without official leave status. He resigned in July 2015 while an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint was pending. He later appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming his resignation was involuntary due to coercion, duress, and misinformation. The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding he failed to non-frivolously allege involuntary resignation.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the Fruhauf test to determine if the resignation was involuntary. The test requires showing that the agency effectively imposed the terms of resignation, the employee had no realistic alternative but to resign, and the resignation resulted from improper acts. The court found that the record did not support a non-frivolous allegation that a reasonable employee would feel coerced. The petitioner had received a letter directing him to return to work and contact his supervisor, indicating he still had a job. Furthermore, the petitioner chose to resign while his EEOC complaint was pending rather than pursuing other available remedies or standing and fighting the alleged discrimination. The court concluded that choosing between resigning and standing and fight demonstrates freedom of choice, not coercion.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the narrow scope of the coercive involuntariness doctrine in federal employment appeals. It clarifies that an employee’s choice to resign while administrative challenges are pending, without exhausting all remedies or demonstrating a lack of realistic alternatives, will likely preclude a finding of involuntary resignation.