NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3253 

LOGAN JOHNSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

 Respondent. 

Arthur R. Ehrlich, Goldman & Ehrlich, of Chicago, Illinois, for petitioner. 

Tara K. Hogan, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on 

the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2008-3253

LOGAN JOHNSON, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

 Respondent. 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in 

CH0752060177-B-1. 

____________________________ 

 

 DECIDED : March 9, 2009 

____________________________ 

 

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION 

Logan Johnson appeals from the final order of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Johnson v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., CH-0752-06-0177-B-1 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 7, 2008). Because the Board did not err in 

finding that it lacked jurisdiction, we affirm. 
BACKGROUND 

 On April 18, 1995, Johnson suffered a back injury while working as a mail 

handler at the United States Postal Service’s (“USPS’s”) Processing & Distribution 

Center in Detroit, Michigan. He filed a claim at the Office of Worker’s Compensation 

(“OWCP”), which OWCP accepted. The next month, Johnson returned to work and 

suffered a recurrence of his injury. He filed a Notice of Recurrence with OWCP. This 

time, OWCP disallowed Johnson’s claim. 

Johnson, unable to return to work, was charged with being on unscheduled leave 

without pay from June 8, 1998 through July 31, 1998. After that, USPS charged him 

with being absent without leave (“AWOL”) from August 1, 1998 through October 20, 

1998. On the last day of his AWOL period, USPS issued a Notice of Proposed 

Removal based on “excessive absenteeism.” Johnson filed a grievance of the 

proposed removal through the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (“NPMHU”) on 

November 3, 1998. 

On June 14, 1999, prior to arbitration, USPS and NPMHU executed a settlement 

agreement regarding Johnson’s grievance. That agreement, which is at the heart of the 

present appeal, stipulated that Johnson would be “allowed” ten days to obtain medical 

clearance to return to his duties as a mail handler. If he did so, he would be reinstated 

with “no restrictions.” If, however, he failed to obtain such clearance, “the grievance 

would be considered closed.” The agreement stated both that it was “a final and 

complete settlement of the subject grievance” and that it constituted “a full and final 

settlement of the subject grievance and resolves all issues pertaining thereto.” The 

agreement reserved Johnson’s rights to apply for disability retirement in the event that 

2008-3253 

 -2- 
he was unable to obtain medical clearance to return to his position, but was silent as to 

the existence of any further appeal rights. 

A few days after the settlement agreement was reached, Johnson was informed 

of the settlement decision and instructed to report to the medical unit to obtain a 

clearance. Shortly thereafter (the exact time is disputed by the parties) Johnson met 

with a physician at the medical unit. The physician’s report of that meeting does not 

indicate that any medical examination took place. Rather, the report indicates that the 

USPS physician contacted Johnson’s private physician and confirmed that Johnson was 

unable to return to work. Furthermore, the report stated that “Johnson has stated that 

he does not know why the Union and Labor want him to come back to work. Please 

take administrative action as this employee does not want this job.” 

Over a year passed with no official action on Johnson’s case. Then, on October 

24, 2000, Johnson was again summoned to the medical unit. Johnson was given a 

Fitness for Duty Examination, which he failed. USPS then issued an SF-50 on 

December 12, 2000, removing Johnson from his position effective December 26, 2000. 

Johnson appealed his removal to the Board on December 20, 2005, nearly five 

years after being removed. In an initial decision, the AJ issued dismissed Johnson’s 

appeal as untimely. On appeal, the Board vacated the initial decision and remanded to 

the regional office for further adjudication. On review from the regional office, the AJ 

found that there was good cause for Johnson’s untimely filing. The timeliness of 

Johnson’s appeal is not at issue before us. 

Once the timeliness issue had been resolved in Johnson’s favor, the AJ found 

that the Board possessed jurisdiction over Johnson’s appeal. Johnson v. U.S. Postal 

2008-3253 

 -3- 
Serv., CH-0752-06-0177-B-1 at 7 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 2, 2007). As a preliminary matter, the 

AJ found that Johnson had entered into the settlement agreement voluntarily, in spite of 

Johnson’s arguments to the contrary. The AJ also found that Johnson had overcome 

the presumption of waived appeal rights that accompanies a settlement agreement. 

The AJ based this finding on numerous facts, including that USPS did not remove 

Johnson for over a year after entering into the settlement agreement, that USPS 

removed Johnson for reasons other than those stated in its Notice of Proposed 

Removal, and that Johnson had no appeal right to waive at the time of the settlement. 

Finally, the AJ found that Johnson had been denied minimum due process rights 

regarding his removal. 

On appeal to the Board for a second time, the Board again reversed the AJ’s 

decision. The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction over Johnson’s appeal. According 

to the Board, Johnson failed to overcome the presumption of waived appeal rights 

because he had voluntarily entered into the settlement agreement, and the agreement 

did not expressly reserve the right to appeal to the Board. Thus, according to the 

Board, because the settlement permitted Johnson’s removal and was “final,” the Board 

lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 

Johnson timely appealed the Board’s dismissal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION 

The scope of our review of an appeal from a Board decision is limited. We can 

only set aside Board decisions that are “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, 

or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by 

2008-3253 

 -4- 
law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial 

evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000); see Briggs v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 331 F.3d 

1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Interpretation of a settlement agreement is a question of 

law that we review de novo. King v. Dep’t of the Navy, 130 F.3d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). 

On appeal, Johnson argues that the Board abused its discretion in finding that 

the settlement agreement was binding on him. In support of his position, he points to 

the fact that he did not sign the agreement, opposed the terms of the agreement, and 

expressly told the medical examiner that he did not want to return to work. Alternatively, 

Johnson argues that the agreement does not call for his immediate removal in the case 

of a failed medical examination. The proper reading of the settlement’s terms, 

according to Johnson, is one that permits an appeal to the Board. 

In response, the government contends that substantial evidence establishes the 

Board’s finding that the settlement was valid and voluntary. The government also 

agrees with the Board’s interpretation of the settlement agreement as divesting Johnson 

of the right to appeal to the Board. 

We agree with the government that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear 

Johnson’s appeal. As a preliminary matter, we agree with the Board that Johnson is 

bound by NPMHU’s settlement agreement, which was entered into on Johnson’s behalf. 

Proving invalidity of a settlement agreement places a “heavy burden” on a petitioner. 

Ashberry v. U.S. Postal Serv., 692 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1982). Johnson’s primary 

argument supporting invalidity of the agreement is that his failure to sign the settlement 

renders the agreement invalid. That argument was squarely rejected in Mays v. United 

2008-3253 

 -5- 
States Postal Service. 995 F.2d 1056, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (upholding the finding of 

voluntariness of a settlement agreement that was not signed). Johnson also claims 

that, regardless of the need for a signed agreement, he should not be bound by an 

agreement of which he did not approve. However, Johnson does not argue that 

NPMHU lacked authority to settle his grievance nor that he did anything to disavow the 

agreement, other than telling the USPS examining physician that he did not want to 

return to his prior position. With such a paucity of evidence regarding the invalidity of 

the agreement at the time it was entered, or any subsequent official repudiation by 

Johnson, we find that Johnson has not met the “heavy burden” of demonstrating that 

the settlement agreement is invalid. Johnson is therefore bound by the actions of his 

chosen representative, NPMHU. 

After affirming the validity of the settlement agreement, the remaining question is 

whether the existence of that settlement agreement divests the Board of jurisdiction in 

this case. We conclude that it does. It is undisputed that the settlement agreement 

does not expressly reserve Johnson’s appeal rights. That fact is fatal to Johnson’s 

case, because “[t]he burden is on the employee to expressly reserve the [right of 

appeal] if he chooses to settle a grievance.” Mays, 995 F.2d at 1060. Indeed, the 

agreement appears to waive such rights by declaring that it is “a full and final settlement 

of the subject grievance.” Thus, the settlement agreement divests the Board of 

jurisdiction in this case. 

Accordingly, because the Board properly dismissed Johnson’s appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction, we affirm the Board’s decision. 

2008-3253 

 -6- 
2008-3253 

 -7- 

COSTS 

No costs.