UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

VICKIE M. MONROE,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

SF-0432-16-0778-I-1

DATE: March 10, 2023

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Vickie M. Monroe, Las Vegas, Nevada, pro se.

Emily Urban, Esquire, San Francisco, California, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member2

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

dismissed the appeal of her removal as settled. Generally, we grant petitions such 

as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains 

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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 Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three-member Board 

completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
2

erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous 

interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to 

the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of 

the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or 

involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of 

the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite 

the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). 

After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner 

has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for 

review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial 

decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). 

BACKGROUND

¶2 The agency removed the appellant for unacceptable performance in her 

GS-7 Individual Taxpayer Advisory Specialist position with the agency’s Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS). Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 50-53, 185-92. On 

appeal, the appellant alleged, among other things, that the agency discriminated 

against her on the bases of age, race, color, sex, and disability, and retaliated 

against her for prior equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. IAF, Tab 24. 

She requested a hearing. IAF, Tab 3. After the hearing, the parties entered into 

an agreement settling the removal appeal and the appellant’s two pending EEO 

complaints. IAF, Tab 45. The agency agreed that it would pay the appellant 

$50,000 in compensatory damages associated with the two EEO complaints, and 

rescind and remove from her Official Personnel File the Standard Form 50 

(SF-50) showing “removal,” substituting for it an SF-50 showing “resignation for 

personal reasons.” The appellant agreed, inter alia, to withdraw her appeal and 

both EEO complaints with prejudice, to voluntarily resign from her position, and 

not to reapply to the IRS. The agreement provided that it was to be entered into 
3

the record for enforcement purposes. Id. After determining that the agreement 

was lawful on its face, that the parties understood and freely accepted its terms, 

and that they wished it to be entered into the record for enforcement purposes, the 

administrative judge issued an initial decision that dismissed the appeal as settled.

IAF, Tab 46, Initial Decision (ID) at 2-3.

¶3 The appellant has filed a petition for review, Petition for Review (PFR) 

File, Tab 1, to which the agency has responded in opposition, PFR File, Tab 3.

ANALYSIS

¶4 On review, the appellant argues that she was mentally confused as to the 

agency’s offer and made a mistake in considering what it provided. PFR File, 

Tab 1 at 5. The party challenging the validity of a settlement agreement bears a 

heavy burden of showing a basis for invalidating it. Potter v. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 111 M.S.P.R. 374, ¶ 5 (2009). Further, a party to a settlement 

agreement is presumed to have full legal capacity to contract unless she is 

mentally disabled and the mental disability is so severe that she cannot form the 

necessary intent. Id., ¶ 6; Brown v. Department of the Interior, 86 M.S.P.R. 546, 

¶ 13 (2000). When an appellant alleges emotional distress as grounds for voiding 

a settlement agreement, the Board will consider whether the appellant was 

represented below, whether she has demonstrated that she was mentally impaired 

at the time of settlement, and whether she has otherwise shown that she was 

unable to fully understand the nature of the settlement agreement or to assist her

representative in the appeal. Short v. U.S. Postal Service, 66 M.S.P.R. 214, 219 

(1995). 

¶5 Here, the appellant was unrepresented below, including when she entered 

into the settlement agreement. Although she alleged below that she was unable to 

focus or concentrate because of her mental state, see, e.g., IAF, Tabs 11, 14, 19, 

29, and 41, the minimal medical evidence she submitted during adjudication of 

the appeal below fails to establish that her emotional state was such that she was 
4

unable to fully understand the nature of the settlement agreement. In support of 

her request for a 30-day suspension of processing of the appeal on the basis of her 

physical and mental condition, the appellant submitted a report dated 

September24, 2012, from an Occupational Medicine Consultant supporting 

reasonable accommodation for the appellant due to her heart condition and high 

blood pressure. IAF, Tab 19 at 17-18. The appellant also submitted a medical 

document requesting that she “be off from work” from August 24, 2015, until 

September 6, 2015, and stating that she would undergo therapy.3 Id. at 20. The 

appellant failed, however, to submit medical evidence more recent than a year 

prior to the time she filed her appeal and almost 2 years before she entered into 

the settlement agreement. Therefore, the appellant has not shown that her 

emotional difficulties were so severe that she could not form contractual intent 

when she entered into the settlement agreement. Potter, 111 M.S.P.R. 374, ¶ 7.

¶6 To establish that a settlement was fraudulent as a result of duress or 

coercion, a party must prove that she involuntarily accepted the other party’s 

terms, that circumstances permitted no other alternative, and that such 

circumstances were the result of the other party’s coercive acts. Parks v. U.S. 

Postal Service, 113 M.S.P.R. 60, ¶ 4 (2010). The appellant has made no such 

allegation regarding the agency representative. She does argue that she was 

unaware that the settlement agreement covered both of her EEO complaints, 

thereby rendering insufficient the amount of compensatory damages offered by 

the agency, and she seeks a supplemental agreement to include an additional 

award of compensatory damages. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5. The appellant’s claim 

is unavailing inasmuch as the agreement specifically provides that it is in full and

s complete settlement of the removal appeal and both EEO complaints, each 

identified by case number. IAF, Tab 45 at 4. As such, the appellant has provided 

 

3

In that same submission, the appellant provided a series of medical documents that 

appear to bear the name of another patient. IAF, Tab 19 at 6, 8-13, 15-16. 
5

no basis for her claim that a supplemental agreement should include an additional 

award of compensatory damages beyond that provided for in the agreement. 

¶7 The appellant also argues that the agreement should not have included the 

provision precluding her from applying to any IRS office because “that was not 

the original agreement.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 5; IAF, Tab 45 at 4. However, to the 

extent that there may have been earlier iterations of draft settlement agreements, 

the agreement that the appellant ultimately signed is the one that formed the basis 

for dismissing her appeal here at issue. An appellant’s mere post-settlement 

remorse or change of heart cannot serve as a basis for setting aside a valid 

settlement agreement. Potter, 111 M.S.P.R. 374, ¶ 6.

¶8 In addition, the appellant argues that the provision precluding her from 

applying to any IRS office should not have been included in the agreement 

because “the Older American Act (sic) was not ever considered during any 

discussions.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. The appellant’s reference appears to be to the 

Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). Under the OWBPA, a 

settlement agreement in an appeal in which the appellant alleges age 

discrimination must meet the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(A)-(E), and 

an appellant must be given a reasonable period of time within which to consider 

the agreement. 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1), (2); Lange v. Department of the Interior, 

94 M.S.P.R. 371, ¶ 7 (2003). As previously noted, the appellant raised age 

discrimination in connection with her removal. IAF, Tab 24. Despite the 

appellant’s claim that the OWBPA was not considered, the administrative judge

in fact found that the settlement agreement complied with the provisions of 

OWBPA before dismissing the appeal as settled. ID at 2; IAF, Tab 45 at 6-7.

Therefore, the appellant has not shown any error in the initial decision regarding 

the OWBPA that would affect the validity of the settlement agreement. Hinton v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 119 M.S.P.R. 129, ¶ 7 (2013).

¶9 Finally, the appellant argues on review that she was denied the opportunity 

to file an “Amended Hearing Complaint” and exhibits, and that she was thereby 
6

harmed by not being able to present her case which, she contends, “would have 

caused the Judge not (sic) to make the correct decision in [her] favor.” PFR File, 

Tab 1 at 3. The appellant further argues that she did not submit certain 

documents to the administrative judge during proceedings below because she was 

mentally and physically unable to do so, and that she was not able to think clearly

because of her mental state and because she was continuing to seek counsel and 

was taking prescribed medications to attempt to function properly. Id. at 4. 

However, the appellant has not shown that these matters had any bearing on her 

subsequent decision to settle her appeal.

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.

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. 

 

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.
7

(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 

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 
8

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: 

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: 
9

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). 

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 

 

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 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. 
10

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. 

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