UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

VALORIE J. MACY,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

PH-1221-17-0324-W-1

DATE: September 27, 2022

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Valorie J. Macy, Granby, Massachusetts, pro se.

Helen E. Moore, Esquire, Boston, Massachusetts, for the agency.

Larry Zieff, Esquire, Williston, Vermont, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not 

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a 

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board 

as significantly contributing to the Board's case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
2

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has petitioned for review of the initial decision in this appeal. 

Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we 

DISMISS the appeal as settled.

¶2 After the filing of the petition for review, the agency submitted a motion to 

dismiss the appeal on the basis of a settlement agreement entered into by the 

parties, effective August 26, 2021. PFR File, Tab 5. The settlement agreement

provides, in pertinent part, that the appellant would withdraw with prejudice her

pending appeal in this case and in three other cases: the joined appeals in Macy 

v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-21-0229-W-1,

and Macy v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket No. PH-752S-21-

0211-I-1, and separately, Macy v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB 

Docket No. PH-1221-18-0335-W-1. Id. at 4-5. The settlement agreement 

required that the appellant move to dismiss or withdraw these cases within 

7 business days of the effective date of the settlement, i.e., by September 8, 

2021. Id.

¶3 The agency’s motion to dismiss noted that although the appellant filed a 

motion to dismiss her pending appeal in MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-21-0229-

W-1,2she did not move to withdraw the instant case or MSPB Docket 

No. PH-1221-18-0335-W-1 as required by the agreement. The agency further 

stated that when it reminded the appellant to file the motions required in these 

cases, she refused to do so until the agency had paid her the amount agreed upon 

in the settlement agreement (although the requirement that she file the motions 

was not dependent on the agency’s payment). Finally, the agency stated that 

 

2

The administrative judge accepted the settlement agreement into the record and 

dismissed this appeal and MSPB Docket No. PH-752S-21-0211-I-1 with prejudice on 

September 2, 2021. Macy v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket 

No. PH-1221-21-0229-W-1, Tab 58, Initial Decision; Macy v. Department of Homeland 

Security, MSPB Docket No. PH-752S-21-0211-I-1, Tab 30, Initial Decision.
3

when the appellant still had not filed the required motions even after payment 

had been made, the agency filed the motions and the settlement agreement in lieu 

of the appellant. Id. at 12-13.

¶4 The appellant did not respond to the agency’s motion to dismiss. However, 

on November 17, 2021, she filed a motion to withdraw her appeal pursuant to the 

settlement agreement. PFR File, Tab 6.

¶5 Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the 

parties have entered into a settlement agreement, whether they understand its 

terms, and whether they intend to have the agreement entered into the record for 

enforcement by the Board. See Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 

146, 149 (1988). In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the 

record for enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the 

agreement is lawful on its face and whether the parties have freely entered into 

it. See Massey v. Office of Personnel Management, 91 M.S.P.R. 289, ¶ 4 (2002), 

overruled on other grounds by Delorme v. Department of the Interior, 

124 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶¶ 11-21 (2017) (holding that the Board may enforce 

settlement agreements that have been entered into the record, independent of any 

prior finding of Board jurisdiction over the underlying matter being settled). 

¶6 Here, we find that the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement 

agreement, understand its terms, and intend for the agreement to be entered into 

the record for enforcement by the Board.3PFR File, Tab 5, at 6. In addition, we 

find that the agreement is lawful on its face and that the parties freely ent ered 

into it. Id.

¶7 Accordingly, we find that dismissing the appeal “with prejudice to refiling” 

(i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate under these 

circumstances, and we accept the settlement agreement into the record for 

 

3 We dismiss the appeal pursuant to the settlement agreement even though the appellant 

filed her withdrawal beyond the deadline specified in the agreement. 
4

enforcement purposes. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.113). 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR

ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS

If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the 

agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by 

promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial 

decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the 

petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not 

been fully carried out, and should include the dates and results of any 

communications between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a). 

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS4

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By 

statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such 

review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). 

Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit 

Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most 

appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a 

statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their 

jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should 

immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all 

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time 

limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum. 

 

4

Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated 

the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the 

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
5

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review 

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions 

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you 

should contact that forum for more information. 

(1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking 

judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court 

within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). 

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the 

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular 

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is 

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at 

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation 

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The 

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that 

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of 

discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you 
6

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action 

was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain 

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination 

claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court (not the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you 

receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017). If you have a 

representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before 

you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days

after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of 

discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling 

condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and 

to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. 

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective 

websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding 

all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the 

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive

this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, 

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file 

with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives

this decision. 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the 

address of the EEOC is: 
7

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or 

by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

131 M Street, N.E. 

Suite 5SW12G 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection 

Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised 

claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or 

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). 

If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s 

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in 

section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 

2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial 

review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court 

of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 5 The court of appeals must receive your 

petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B). 

 

5

The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain 

whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on 

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on 

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judici al review of 

MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195, 

132 Stat. 1510. 
8

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the 

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particula r 

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is 

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at 

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation 

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The 

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that 

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their 

respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

 /s/ for 

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board