Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03203/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03203-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
United States Postal Service
Respondent
Kendra S. Vanderlee
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KENDRA S. VANDERLEE,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2014-3203

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-0353-06-0658-1-2. 

______________________ 

Decided: March 6, 2015

______________________ 

KENDRA S. VANDERLEE, Grand Haven, MI, pro se.

CALVIN M. MORROW, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, D.C., for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-3203 Document: 27-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2015
2 VANDERLEE v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Kendra S. VanderLee appeals the July 14, 

2014, decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

(“Board”) dismissing her petition for review of her restoration appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See VanderLee v. U.S. 

Postal Serv., No. CH-0353-0658-1-2 (M.S.P.B. July 14, 

2014) (“Final Order”). For the reasons set forth below, 

this court affirms.

BACKGROUND

Ms. VanderLee was a “Rural Carrier” with the United 

States Postal Service (“Agency”) when, in 1998, she “suffered a compensable injury” and consequently missed 

work. Final Order at 2. Because of her injury, the Agency reassigned her to a clerk position on September 9, 

2000. In 2004, Ms. VanderLee’s doctor released her from 

all medical restrictions and she requested to be placed on 

the priority reemployment1 list for a Rural Carrier position. After the Agency denied her request, her union 

filed a grievance and Ms. VanderLee simultaneously filed 

an “instant restoration appeal”2 to the Board. 

Pursuant to the union grievance, and prior to arbitration or a settlement agreement, the parties entered into a 

stipulation on December 15, 2006 (“2006 Stipulation”), to 

1 “An employee who separated because of a compensable injury and whose full recovery takes longer than 

1 year . . . is entitled to priority consideration, agencywide, for restoration. . . . [C]onsideration is accorded by 

entering the individual on the [A]gency’s reemployment 

priority list[.]” 5 C.F.R. § 353.301 (2013).

2 Ms. VanderLee had the right to “appeal a violation of []her restoration rights to the Merit Systems

Protection Board under the provisions of the Board’s 

regulations.” 5 C.F.R. § 302.501 (2013).

 

Case: 14-3203 Document: 27-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/06/2015
VANDERLEE v. MSPB 3

have Ms. VanderLee “withdraw her [B]oard appeal so 

that the case could proceed in a single forum.” Id. This 

withdrawal was not absolute—“if the Agency refused to 

arbitrate, the appellant reserved her right to refile her 

Board appeal within 30 days of receiving notice of the 

refusal.” Id. (emphasis added). As a result of the 2006 

Stipulation, an administrative judge (“AJ”) dismissed the 

Board appeal on December 18, 2006. Ms. VanderLee 

claims she entered into the 2006 Stipulation because the 

Agency incorrectly told her that she could not continue 

both suits simultaneously and she was required to choose 

between the union grievance and the Board appeal. Id. at 

4.

The union and the Agency settled Ms. VanderLee’s 

grievance on June 5, 2008, without entering arbitration 

(“the 2008 Settlement”). Ms. VanderLee claims the Union 

settled without her consent and that she learned about it 

several years later, on April 5, 2013. Ms. VanderLee 

refiled her appeal on April 9, 2013. On July 26, 2013, the 

AJ entered an Initial Decision, and dismissed the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction, finding the 2006 Stipulation was 

valid and the conditions to refile—that the Agency refuse 

to arbitrate—had not been met. VanderLee v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., No. CH-0353-0658-1-2 (M.S.P.B. July 26, 2013) 

(“Initial Decision”). Ms. VanderLee filed a petition for 

review before a Board Panel. On July 14, 2014, the Board 

denied the petition, finding it lacked jurisdiction for the 

same reasons stated by the AJ. Ms. VanderLee appeals 

the Board’s Final Order to this court. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review and Jurisdiction

This court’s “scope of . . . review of [B]oard decisions is 

limited to whether they are (1) arbitrary, capricious, an 

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with 

law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, 

rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupportCase: 14-3203 Document: 27-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/06/2015
4 VANDERLEE v. MSPB

ed by substantial evidence.” Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) 

(1988)). The issue of Board jurisdiction is a question of 

law this court reviews de novo. Johnston v. Merit Sys. 

Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This court is 

bound by the Board’s jurisdictional factual findings “unless those findings are not supported by substantial 

evidence.” Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 154 F.3d 1313, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Ms. VanderLee bears the burden of demonstrating 

Board jurisdiction by a preponderance of [the] evidence. 

Fields v. Dep’t of Justice, 452 F.3d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 

2006); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2)(i) (2013). “Those who 

employ the judicial appellate process to attack a settlement through which controversy has been sent to rest 

bear a properly heavy burden.” Asberry v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., 692 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1982). 

II. The Board Properly Found It Lacked Jurisdiction to 

Hear the Appeal 

Ms. VanderLee has not met her burden to show Board 

jurisdiction. The Board held the 2006 Stipulation was 

valid and it precluded Ms. VanderLee from appealing to 

the Board because the Agency had not refused to arbitrate. This court addresses these holdings in turn.

A. The Board’s Finding the 2006 Stipulation Was Valid Is 

Supported by Substantial Evidence 

Ms. VanderLee first contends the 2006 Stipulation 

was invalid because it equated to “[f]raud and misrepresentation on the part of the [A]gency to coerce an employee into a settlement agreement.” Pet’r’s Br. at 1 ¶ 3. She 

claims the Agency pressured her into signing the 2006 

Stipulation because the Agency incorrectly told her she 

must “choose between proceeding with her Board appeal 

and proceeding with her grievance.” Final Order at 4. 

Case: 14-3203 Document: 27-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/06/2015
VANDERLEE v. MSPB 5

Ms. VanderLee has not cited any law or pointed to 

any record evidence demonstrating Agency fraud or 

misrepresentation. Her only contentions are factual, and

this court must adhere to the Board’s factual findings 

unless they are not supported by substantial evidence. 

Bolton, 154 F.3d at 1316. Though Ms. VanderLee points

to a misstatement made by the Agency regarding her 

ability to pursue simultaneous actions in multiple fora, 

the Board correctly found this misstatement did not 

amount to fraud. Indeed, as the Board stated, Mrs. 

VanderLee “was represented by an attorney, was free to 

disagree with the challenged statement in the stipulation 

and refuse to withdraw the [B]oard appeal.” Final Order 

at 5. Accordingly, Ms. VanderLee has not met her burden 

and the Board’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

B. The Board’s Finding that the Agency Did Not Abandon 

Arbitration Is Supported by Substantial Evidence

Ms. VanderLee also argues the required condition for 

refiling an appeal—that the Agency refuse to arbitrate—

was met after the 2008 Settlement because her claim was 

not heard by an arbitrator. See Pet’r’s Br. at 1 ¶ 2; see 

also Final Order at 3. She contends the 2008 Settlement

was invalid because it was made without her approval 

and “made by the union where the union officers worked 

to the detriment of the employee.” Pet’r’s Br. at 1 ¶ 3. 

The Board found Ms. VanderLee “has presented absolutely no evidence to support her allegation of [A]gency 

refusal.” Initial Decision at 9. This finding is supported 

by substantial evidence. As the Board stated, “[t]he [2006 

S]tipulation does not allow [Ms. VanderLee] to refile her 

appeal if her grievance does not go to arbitration for any 

reason.” Final Order at 3 (emphasis added). Here, “[t]he 

grievance at issue . . . was settled by consent of the parties prior to arbitration.” Id. at 4. Because “the [A]gency 

did not unilaterally refuse to arbitrate,” id., the conditions 

Case: 14-3203 Document: 27-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/06/2015
6 VANDERLEE v. MSPB

for refiling the appeal were not met. The fact that Ms. 

VanderLee claims she had no knowledge of the settlement 

is immaterial. Indeed, as the Board stated, “the result of 

this case would be the same no matter when [Ms. 

VanderLee] received notice of the settlement because 

there simply was no refusal to arbitrate.” Id. Ms. 

VanderLee is unable to show the Board lacked substantial 

evidence for this finding, and this court accordingly 

affirms its finding of no jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

Ms. VanderLee has failed to meet her burden of 

demonstrating the Board has jurisdiction over this case. 

See Fields, 452 F.3d at 1302. For the reasons set forth 

above, the decision of the Board is

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No Costs. 

Case: 14-3203 Document: 27-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/06/2015