UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

MATHEW SENULIS,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE IN TERIOR,

Agency. DOCKET NUMBER DE

- 0752

- 19

- 0337

- I

- 1

DATE: September 26, 2022



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Carson Bridges , Esquire and Tyler J. Sroufe , Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for the appellant. Ryan W. Burton , Lakewood, Colorado, for the agency.

BEFORE Cathy A. Harris
, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon
, Member Tristan L. Leavi tt , Member Member Limon recused himself and did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has petitioned for review of the August 25, 2020 initial decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 47, Initial Decision; Petition for

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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

Review (PFR) File, Tab 3. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the appeal as settled. ¶2 After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by the appellant on
N ovember 11, 2020, and by the agency on November 13, 2020. PFR File, Tab 5. The document provides, among other things, that the appellant agreed to
withdraw the above

- captioned MSPB appeal in exchange for the promises made by the agency. Id. at 5. ¶3 Befo re 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. S ee 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 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 set tled). ¶4 Here, we find that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and that they understand its terms. We further find that the parties do not intend to enter the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement by the Board, as the agre ement instead provides that the parties will seek compliance through the equal employment opportunity procedures set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504

. 2

2 In response to an e

- Appeal prompt when submitting the settlement agreement in this appeal, th e agency indicated that the parties agreed that the settlement agreement would be entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. PFR File, Tab 5 at 3. However, the settlement agreement itself provides that allegations of noncompliance3

PFR File, Tab 5 at 8; see Grubb v. Department of the Interior
, 76 M.S.P.R. 639 , 642

- 43 (1997) (finding that the parties intended for the Equal Employment Opportunity Com mission, not the Board, to enforce a settlement agreement that provided for enforcement in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 ). As the parties do not intend for the Board to enforce the settlement agreement, we need not address the additional considerations regarding enforcement and do not enter the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement by the Board. ¶5 In light of the foregoing, 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. 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 OF APPEAL RIG HTS 3 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 b elow 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

will be proc essed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504

. Id. at 8. As the words of the agreement itself are of paramount importance in determining the intent of the parties at the time they contracted , we find that the parties did not intend the settlement agreement to be entered into the record for enforcement by the Board but instead for the appellant to pursue enforcement through the alternate process specified in the agreement. See Greco v. Depart ment of the Army
, 852 F.2d 558 , 560 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

3 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.4

immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
fil ing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum. Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review below to decide which one applies t o 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 judic ial 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 a ttorney will accept representation in a given case.5

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and tha t 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 th e 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 accesse d 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 r eceive
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 tha n 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:6

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. Sui te 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 n o 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

re view either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 4 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).

4 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 judicial 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. 1510.7

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 particular
rel evance 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