The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld the dismissal of Saeed Tavakkol's appeal against the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The court ruled that Tavakkol did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that his resignation from the United States Postal Service (USPS) was involuntary. This ruling, issued on May 14, 2026, affects employees who may feel coerced to resign due to workplace conditions.

The case, docket number 24-1514, centers on Tavakkol's allegations of harassment and discrimination during his employment at USPS. He claimed that his resignation was the result of duress and misinformation, which the court ultimately found unsubstantiated. This decision underscores the challenges employees face when contesting their resignations as involuntary.

Background

Saeed Tavakkol began his career with the USPS as an Operations Industrial Engineer on October 5, 2013. He reported experiencing harassment related to his national origin, race, and religion, particularly from his assigned mentor, Don Hamel. Tavakkol alleged that Hamel made derogatory comments and that his complaints to management went unaddressed.

In addition to the harassment, Tavakkol claimed he faced retaliation for whistleblowing activities, which included receiving a Letter of Warning regarding safety concerns. Following mediation, this warning was withdrawn, but he continued to face negative actions from his supervisors, including being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.

As a result of the ongoing harassment, Tavakkol sought medical leave in February 2015. He filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March 2015, alleging discrimination and retaliation. However, the EEOC ruled in favor of USPS in April 2019, stating that Tavakkol did not provide sufficient evidence of discrimination.

The Ruling

After resigning from USPS on July 17, 2015, Tavakkol appealed to the MSPB in July 2019, claiming his resignation was involuntary due to coercion and misinformation. The MSPB dismissed his appeal, stating that he failed to non-frivolously allege that his resignation was the result of duress or coercion.

The court, led by Circuit Judge Stoll, affirmed the MSPB's decision. Stoll noted, "Mr. Tavakkol did not non-frivolously allege that his decision to resign was the result of coercion, misinformation, misrepresentation, or deception on the agency’s part, or that it was so intolerable that he had no choice but to resign when he did." The ruling emphasized that Tavakkol's claims did not meet the legal standard required to establish jurisdiction for his appeal.

Impact

The court's ruling has significant implications for employees who may feel pressured to resign from their positions. It clarifies that to claim an involuntary resignation, the employee must demonstrate that their resignation was the result of coercive actions taken by the employer. This ruling sets a precedent that reinforces the need for substantial evidence when contesting a resignation.

Employees in similar situations may find it challenging to prove that their resignations were involuntary, especially if they have not pursued all available administrative remedies before resigning. The decision highlights the importance of documenting workplace conditions and seeking formal resolutions through appropriate channels.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Tavakkol plans to appeal the decision further. There are currently no related cases pending that may impact this ruling.