Darren Sligh v. Social Security Administration

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DARREN J. SLIGH, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, NY-0752-24-0133-I-2 v.

SOCIAL SECURITY DATE: September 2, 2026 ADMINISTRATION,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1 Darren J. Sligh , New Rochelle, New York, pro se.

Danielle R. Jones , Natalie Liem , Esquire, and Jennifer McMahon , Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the agency.

BEFORE James J. Woodruff II, Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which sustained his 20-day suspension. On petition for review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge was biased, improperly limited his testimony, allowed irrelevant questions about his personal life, and wrongly denied discovery and witness requests. He also argues that the agency’s charges—including conduct unbecoming, lack of candor, and the resulting penalty—were unsupported or excessive. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

The appellant challenges the administrative judge’s conduct during the proceedings below. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 6. Administrative judges are presumed to act with honesty and integrity, and this presumption can only be overcome by a substantial showing of personal bias; the Board will not infer bias based on an administrative judge’s case-related rulings. Vaughn v. Department of the Treasury, 119 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 18 (2013). A new adjudication is warranted only if the administrative judge’s comments or actions show deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that makes fair judgment impossible. Bieber v. Department of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)).

The appellant argues that the administrative judge was not impartial because she limited cross-examination, intervened to clarify testimony, allowed questions about his personal life, and did not allow him to provide testimony critical to his case. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-7. However, the hearing record shows that the appellant received full direct, cross, and redirect examinations. Sligh v. Social Security Administration, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-24-0133-I-2, Appeal File (I-2 AF), Tab 18-5, Hearing Recording 5 (HR-5) (testimony of the appellant). His claim about improper questions concerning his personal life is unpersuasive; the limited questions about his wife were relevant to the dispute, and his representative did not object. PFR File, Tab 1 at 7; HR-5 at 35:30-36:20. He has not shown error in the administrative judge allowing this testimony, and he is bound by the actions of his chosen representative. See Sofio v. Internal Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1981).

The appellant has also not shown that the administrative judge abused her discretion in denying his motion to compel or three of his requested witnesses. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-7. An administrative judge has broad discretion in ruling on discovery matters, and absent an abuse of discretion, the Board will not find reversible error in such rulings. Pridgen v. Office of Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 71. The administrative judge properly denied the appellant’s first motion to compel as moot because the agency had already provided responses, and she declined to rule on the agency’s motion to compel the appellant after he failed to respond. Sligh v. Social Security Administration, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-24-0133-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 13. The record further shows that the administrative judge later granted the appellant’s second motion to compel CCTV footage over the agency’s objection, ordering release of the unredacted video. IAF, Tab 16, Tab 22 at 9-10. These actions do not reflect favoritism and support the conclusion that the administrative judge acted within her discretion. 2

The appellant has not shown error in the denial of his three witnesses because he did not sufficiently explain their relevance. 3 PFR File, Tab 1 at 6; IAF, Tab 22 at 9. For example, his witnesses were proffered to provide testimony about the union’s practices and the union official’s alleged retaliation against other employees. IAF, Tab 22 at 9. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.41(b)(8), (10), an administrative judge may exclude witnesses whose testimony is not shown to be relevant, material, and nonrepetitious. Franco v. U.S. Postal Service, 27 M.S.P.R. 322, 325 (1985). The administrative judge’s ruling was therefore within her broad discretion.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you should contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives this decision.

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the address of the EEOC is:

Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission P.O. Box 77960 Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:

Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M Street, N.E. Suite 5SW12G Washington, D.C. 20507

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 5 The court of appeals must receive your petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

Gina K. Grippando Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.