DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
This consolidated case is before the Board of Directors (“Board”) pursuant to a petition filed by the pro se appellant, Venu Pillai, seeking review of the April 14, 2020 Order of the Hearing Officer that entered summary judgment in favor of his employing office, the United States Capitol Police (“USCP”). Upon due consideration of the Hearing Officer’s Order, the parties’ briefs and filings, and the record in these proceedings, the Board affirms the Hearing Officer’s Order in its entirety.
I. Background and Procedural History
This consolidated case is before the Board of Directors (“Board”) pursuant to a petition filed by the pro se appellant, Venu Pillai, seeking review of the April 14, 2020 Order of the Hearing Officer that entered summary judgment in favor of his employing office, the United States Capitol Police (“USCP”). Upon due consideration of the Hearing Officer’s Order, the parties’ briefs and filings, and the record in these proceedings, the Board affirms the Hearing Officer’s Order in its entirety.
In March 2018, prior to meeting formally with her division staff, the appellant’s supervisor came to his office and asked “When are you going to retire?” When the appellant demurred, the supervisor told the appellant “I need to know” and left. Thereafter, the appellant perceived that his supervisor began harassing and discriminating against him, as discussed below.
During the first week of August 2018, the appellant’s supervisor informed him that she had received a complaint about him from an analyst that he supervised. Specifically, the analyst informed the supervisor that the appellant made her uncomfortable by stating that she would not be allowed to make any mistakes. The appellant requested a meeting so that he could resolve whatever concern the analyst had. During this meeting, the appellant explained that he was communicating the priority that everything that the Budget Division produced must be without error and that, with recent changes in OFM management, the Budget Division no longer had the same collaborative relationship it had under previous management. During the meeting, the supervisor directed the analyst to raise her hand whenever she felt as if the appellant was bullying or threatening her in the future. The supervisor also instructed the appellant to reconsider his tone whenever the analyst signaled she was distressed by raising her hand.
Following this meeting, the appellant began having less personal interactions with the analyst.
