[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-289788-105":59,"doc-detail-289788-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","opinion-and-order-aimee-karnes-v-department-of-justice","Opinion and Order - Aimee Karnes v. Department of Justice","","Opinion and Order from the United States Merit Systems Protection Board in DA-1221-21-0009-W-1 (2023 MSPB 12). The Board addresses an agency petition for review challenging an initial decision granting corrective action to Aimee Karnes, who was reassigned from an EDOK GS-13 Administrative Officer position to a Budget Analyst role in Arlington. The Board denies review, modifies the administrative judge’s analysis regarding the Carr factor framework, but affirms the ultimate conclusion. The decision turns on whistleblower reprisal, finding OSC complaint activity contributed to issuance of the management directed reassignment.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/opinion-and-order-aimee-karnes-v-department-of-justice/289788/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/opinion-and-order-aimee-karnes-v-department-of-justice/289788.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Kyle","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",16,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What did the initial decision grant Aimee Karnes?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The initial decision granted corrective action and ordered her reassignment to her former position.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What protected activity did Karnes rely on?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"Karnes relied on a complaint to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) disclosing wrongdoing by her supervisor.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"How did the Board rule on the agency’s petition for review?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The Board denied the petition for review, modified the administrative judge’s analysis, and otherwise affirmed the initial decision.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},289788,1789637042,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},3985741905716,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD  \n2023 MSPB 12  \n\n| Docket No. DA-1221-21-0009-W-1 |\n| --- |\n| Aimee Karnes, Appellant, v.\u003Cbr>Department of Justice, Agency.\u003Cbr>March 20, 2023 |\n\nLawrence Berger  , Esquire, Glen Cove, New York, for the appellant.  \nSean Lee  , Washington, D.C. , for the agency.  \nSusan E. Gibson  , Arlington, Virginia, for the agency.  \nBEFORE  \nCathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman  \nRaymond A. Limon, Member  \nOPINION AND ORDER  \n¶1 The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which  \ngranted the appellant’s request for corrective action and ordered her reassignment to her former position. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the petition for review , MODIFY the administrative judge ’s analysis of the factors set forth in Carr v. Social Security Administration , 185 F.3d 1318  , 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) , but agree with her ultimate conclusion, and otherwise AFFIRM the initial decision.  \nBACKGROUND  \n¶2 The appellant was formerly employed as a GS-13 Administrative Officer at  \nthe U.S. Marshal Service’s Eastern District of Oklahoma (EDOK) . Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1, Tab 8 at 8. In July and August 2019, she disclosed to the agency’s Sex Offenses Investigation Coordinator that her first-level supervisor improperly sold Government property for scrap metal and used the money for a coffee and water fund, and had fabricated timecards by certifying that he was on duty during periods that he was absent without corresponding leave. IAF, Tab 7 at 17-18, 25-34. The Investigation Coordinator contacted the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) on the appellant’s behalf, and the appellant later filed an anonymous OSC complaint regarding the same matters. Id. at 17-18. OSC subsequently contacted the agency, and the agency conducted an internal affairs (IA) review into the appellant’s claims. Id.  \n¶3 Following the IA investigation, the Deputy Director of the U.S. Marshal  \nService assembled a District Assessment Team (DAT) and sent the team to EDOK to conduct interviews regarding the work climate in the EDOK office, with the purpose of identifying any underlying issues that may have been impeding the agency’s mission in the district. IAF, Tab 8 at 11; Hearing Transcript (HT) at 128-32 (testimony of the Deputy Director), 200 (testimony of a DAT member) . The DAT members interviewed all employees in EDOK and produced a written report of conclusions and recommendations. IAF, Tab 8 at 11-16. The report concluded, among other things, that the district was divided between two“factions” of employees, one of which was aligned with the appellant, and the other of which was aligned with the appellant’s first-level [supervisor.](supervisor. Id. at)[ Id.](supervisor. Id. at)[ at](supervisor. Id. at) 12. The report also recommended, among other things, that both the appellant and the Investigation Coordinator who contacted OSC on the appellant’s behalf be reassigned to positions in another [district.](district. Id. at)[ Id.](district. Id. at)[ at](district. Id. at) 16. The Deputy Director reviewed the DAT report and issued the appellant a management directed reassignment (MDR) from her position in EDOK to a Budget Analyst position in  \nArlington, Virginia. IAF, Tab 8 at 9-10; HT at 123 (testimony of the Deputy Director) .  \n¶4 The appellant accepted the MDR under protest, and on May 13, 2020, she  \nfiled an OSC complaint alleging that she was reassigned in retaliation for her prior complaint to OSC disclosing wrongdoing by her supervisor. IAF, Tab 7 at 17-18, 25-34, Tab 8 at 9-10. OSC issued a close-out letter informing the appellant of her right to seek corrective action with the Board, IAF, Tab 1 at 7-8 , and the appellant timely filed the instant individual right of action (IRA) appeal, [id.](id. at)[ at](id. at) 1-6.  \n¶5 After holding the appellant ’s requested hearing, IAF, Tab 27, the  \nadministrative judge issued an initial decision granting her request for corrective action , IAF,","cbCaiaR3cimIVB2G","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiaR3cimIVB2G","pdf",511551,27,"English","# Background\n## Prior disclosures and OSC complaint\n## District Assessment Team and management directed reassignment\n# Analysis\n## Jurisdiction and review arguments\n## Constructive knowledge and contributing factor","[{\"question\":\"What did the initial decision grant Aimee Karnes?\",\"answer\":\"The initial decision granted corrective action and ordered her reassignment to her former position.\"},{\"question\":\"What protected activity did Karnes rely on?\",\"answer\":\"Karnes relied on a complaint to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) disclosing wrongdoing by her supervisor.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Board rule on the agency’s petition for review?\",\"answer\":\"The Board denied the petition for review, modified the administrative judge’s analysis, and otherwise affirmed the initial decision.\"}]","Opinion and Order - Aimee Karnes v. Department of Justice | PDF",68]