UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

RANDY ELLEN HYMAN,

Appellant,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Agency. DOCKET NUMBER AT

- 0752

- 16

- 0401

- I

- 1

DATE: March 21, 2022



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Jacob Y. Statman , Esquire, Pikesville, Maryland, for the appellant.

Rebecca Snowdall
, Regan A.W. Herald , and Kenneth M. Willner
, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE Raymond A. Limon , Vice Chair Tristan L. Leavitt , Member

FINAL ORDER
¶1 The agency has petitioned for review of the November 1, 2016 initial decision in this appeal. P etition for R eview (PFR) File, Tab 1; Initial Appeal

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not require d to follow or distinguish them in any future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

File, Tab 27 , Initial Decision

. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the

appea l 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 January 17, 2017, and by the agency on January 18, 2017

. PFR File, Tab 5. The document provid es, among other things, that the appellant agreed to withdraw with prejudice his claims in the above

- captioned appeal in exchange for the promises made by the agency

. Id. at 6

. On June 23, 2017, the agency withdrew its petition for review. Id. at 4. ¶3 B efore 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 freely entered into it

. See Massey v. Office of Personnel Managemen t , 91 M.S.P.R. 289 , ¶ 4 (2002) , overruled on other grounds by Delorm e 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 reco rd, independent of any prior finding of Board jurisdiction over the underlying matter being settled). ¶4 Here, we find that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend for the agreement to be entered into the record
for enforceme nt by the Board. PFR File, Tab 5

. In addition, we find that the agreement is lawful on its face and that the parties freely entered into it. Id

. A ccordingly, we find that dismissal of the appeal “with prejudice to refiling” (i.e., t he parties normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate under these
circumstances
, and we accept the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement purposes.3

¶5 This is the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal.
Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 )

.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIE S OF THEIR ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out t he 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 t he 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 RIG HTS 2 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 summar y 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
li mit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

2 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 w hich option is most appropriate in any matter.4

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 f orum 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 t he 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 availabl e 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 you5

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 disposi tion 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 hav e 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
di scrimination 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 C ommission (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 calen dar 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 t he 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:6

Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commiss ion

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 peti tion for judicial review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 3 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).

3 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 cou rt 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
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 c ase. 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/C ourtWebsites.aspx

.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C. /s/ for Jennifer Everling Acting Clerk of the Board