OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
LA 200, John Adams Building, 110 Second Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20540-1999
JOE D. CLARK,
v. Case No. 01-AC-388(RP)
June 17 , 2004
OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT
OF THE CAPITOL
Before the Board of Directors: Susan
S. Robfogel, Chair; Barbara L. Camens, Alan V. Friedman; Roberta
L. Holzwarth; Barbara Childs Wallace, Members.
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF
On September 30, 2003, Hearing Officer Sylvia
Bacon issued the attached Decision and Judgment. The Hearing Officer
concluded that the Respondent had not committed an act of retaliatory
discrimination in connection with the May 24, 2001 termination1 of
the Appellant’s employment as a Personnel Assistant, pay grade
The Board has considered the decision in light
of the record, the petition for review, and the parties’ briefs.
The Board finds that the Hearing Officer’s conclusions are
supported by substantial evidence and affirms the Hearing Officer’s
determination that the record does not establish proscribed discrimination.
See Office of the Architect of the Capitol v. Office of Compliance,
et al., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 4541 (Fed. Cir. 03/11/2004); Francisca
Laguna v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, Case No.
02-AC-54(CV,FL) (Board of Directors Decision, dated April 8, 2004).
We rely upon the Hearing Officer’s finding and conclusion
that the Appellant did not prove that his prior protected activity
motivated the Appellee’s decision to terminate his employment.
We are satisfied that the Hearing Officer applied
the correct legal standards in analyzing this case notwithstanding
the decision’s omission of reference to specific case law
citation.. We do not agree with the Appellant that the decision
is independently deficient for its failure to cite case law. “[I]t
is the validity of the judgment, not the quality of any opinion
supporting it, that has legal significance, and the court’s
failure to cite any cases has no relevance to whether the court
reached the correct legal result.” James Constant v. United
States, 929 F.2d 654, at 657 (Fed Cir. 1991).
Finally, we find without merit the Appellant’s
claim that the Hearing Officer breached applicable confidentiality
requirements by considering an earlier Board decision in which the
Appellant was a party. The Office provided that decision to the
Hearing Officer on July 14, 2003, several weeks after it was posted
on the Office’s website, pursuant to Section 416 (f) [confidentiality]
of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Pursuant to Section 406(e) of the Congressional
Accountability Act and Section 8.01(d) of the Office’s Procedural
Rules, the Board affirms the Hearing Officer’s merits determination
of no discrimination in this matter.
It is so ordered.
Issued, Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of June,
2004, I delivered a copy of this Decision of the Board of Directors
to the following parties by the below identified means:
First-Class Mail Postage-Prepaid
Jeffrey H. Leib, Esq.
Attorney at Law
5104 34th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
First-Class Mail Postage-Prepaid,
& Facsimile Mail (w/o Hearing Officer Decision)
Peggy Tyler, Esq.
Office of Architect of the Capitol
Office of Employment Counsel
Ford House Building, Room H2-202
Washington, D.C. 20515
Kisha L. Harley
Office of Compliance