Court Opinion

ID: 9395097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 06:00:14.190928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.381727
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

RANDY STEPHENS,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DC-1221-20-0855-X-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: May 16, 2023
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Shaun Yancey, Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant.

      Anette H. Veldhuyzen, Esquire and Elwood Lee Waters, III, Fort Lee,
        Virginia, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                          Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                           Raymond A. Limon, Member
                           Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                      FINAL ORDER

¶1         On August 25, 2021, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial
     decision finding the agency in noncompliance with a settlement agreement filed
     with the Board for enforcement purposes at the request of the parties, grant ed the
     appellant’s petition for enforcement, and ordered the agency to “pay the appellant
     twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) in compensatory damages, and twenty
     two thousand dollars ($22,000.00) for attorneys’ fees” within 30 days. Stephens
     v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-20-0855-C-1,
     Compliance File (CF), Tab 4, Compliance Initial Decision (CID) at 3–4; Stephens
     v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-20-0855-W-1, Initial
     Appeal File (IAF), Tab 28, Initial Decision (ID).      For the reasons discussed
     below, we find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the petition for
     enforcement.

        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2        On September 10, 2020, the appellant filed an individual right of action
     appeal alleging whistleblower retaliation. CID at 2. On or about November 16,
     2020, the appellant and the agency executed a Settlement Agreement (Agreement)
     resolving the IRA appeal. Id. Pursuant to the Agreement, the agency promised,
     in pertinent part, to pay the appellant $25,000 in compensatory damages and
     $22,000 in attorney’s fees as a lump sum payment by check payable to the
     appellant’s counsel’s law firm, Melville Johnson, P.C. Id.; IAF, Tab 26, at 7-8.
     The agency further agreed to initiate paperwork to the Defense Finance
     Accounting Service (DFAS) for payment of the sum within sixty days of the
     termination of the seven-day revocation period provided in the agreement, which
     meant the request to DFAS was due on or about January 22, 2021. CID at 2; IAF,
     Tab 26, at 7-8.
¶3        At the parties’ request, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     dated November 30, 2020, dismissing the appeal as settled and accepting the
                                                                                       3

     Agreement into the record for enforcement purposes pursuant to 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.182. ID at 1-2. The November 30, 2020 initial decision became the final
     decision of the Board on January 4, 2021, as neither party petitioned the full
     Board for review. ID at 2.
¶4        On July 22, 2021, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement of the
     Settlement Agreement. CF, Tab 1. The appellant alleged that in fact, the agency
     did not submit the paperwork to DFAS required to process the appellant’s
     payment within the agreed-upon timeframe. CF, Tab 1 at 6–8; see CID at 2. The
     administrative judge issued an Acknowledgement Order and a Second Order to
     Respond directing the agency to respond to the allegations in the appellant’s
     petition for enforcement. See CID at 2-3. The agency failed to respond to either
     order. Id.
¶5        On August 25, 2021, the administrative judge determined the agency was
     not in compliance with the Agreement. CID at 3-4. The administrative judge
     found specifically that “[t]he undisputed facts show that the agency failed to
     provide the proper documentation to DFAS to effectuate the appellant’s payment,
     and failed to pay the appellant in a timely manner.” CID at 3. The administrative
     judge further found that the agency’s breach of the Agreement was material due
     to the amount of the outstanding payment. 3 CID at 4. Finally, the administrative
     judge ruled that the appellant filed the petition for enforcement within a
     reasonable time after the appellant became aware of the breach. CID at 3 -4.
¶6        Neither party filed a petition for review of the compliance initial decision.
     Thus, the appellant’s petition for enforcement has been referred to the Board for a
     final decision on issues of compliance pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(b)-(c).

     3
       The initial decision did not address whether the app ellant wished to enforce the
     agreement or rescind it. See Kitt v. Department of the Navy, 116 M.S.P.R. 680, ¶ 12
     (2011). The appellant stated that he wished to enforce it, however. CF, Tab 1 at 9.
                                                                                              4

     Stephens v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-20-0855-X-1,
     Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1.
¶7         On September 8, 2021, the agency filed a Motion to Submit Evidence of
     Payment, in which it appears to assert that DFAS issued a check in the amount of
     $47,000 to the appellant on or about August 25, 2021. See CRF, Tab 1 at 6-7.
     On September 9, 2021, the Clerk of the Board issued an Acknowledgement Order
     to the appellant notifying him of his right to respond to the agency’s submission
     and advising him that if he did not respond to the submission within 20 days of
     service, then the Board may assume that he is satisfied and dismiss the petition
     for enforcement.     CRF, Tab 2 at 2.       The appellant has not responded to the
     Acknowledgement Order or the agency’s Motion to Submit Evidence of Payment.
¶8         On September 24, 2021, the agency filed a Motion to Dismiss for
     Substantial Compliance in which it asserts, inter alia, that “[o]n September 2,
     2021, DFAS payment was posted,” and “[o]n September 10, 2021, payment of
     $47,000 to Melville Johnson cleared.”           CRF, Tab 4 at 3.         To support its
     assertions, the agency has attached email correspondence and printouts from
     DFAS’s computer system showing that DFAS issued a check in the amount of
     $47,000 to Melville Johnson, P.C., and that on September 10, 2021, the check
     cleared. CRF, Tab 4 at 18-20. The appellant has not responded to the agency’s
     Motion to Dismiss for Substantial Compliance. 4
¶9         “The Board will enforce a settlement agreement that has been entered into
     the record in the same manner as a final Board decision or order.”               Burke v.
     4
       On October 12, 2021, the appellant filed a motion for attorney fees in the compliance
     case. CF, Tab 6. The motion did not address the agency’s evidence of compliance. In
     any event, the motion is premature, as it was filed before this final decision iss ued. See
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.203(d) (“A motion for attorney fees must be filed as soon as possible
     after a final decision of the Board but no later than 60 days after the date on which a
     decision becomes final.”); Belmont v. U.S. Postal Service, 109 M.S.P.R. 505, ¶ 8 (2008)
     (denying motion for attorney fees filed before issuance of final decision as premature).
     If the appellant wishes his attorney fee petition to be considered, he must file it as a
     separate case, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.203(b).
                                                                                            5

      Department of Veterans Affairs, 121 M.S.P.R. 299, ¶ 8 (2014).                When the
      appellant alleges the agency has breached a settlement agreement, the agency
      must respond by producing relevant, material evidence of its compliance or
      showing good cause for noncompliance. Id. However, the appellant ultimately
      bears the burden of proving the agency’s breach by a preponderance of the
      evidence. 5 Id.
¶10         In its September 24, 2021 statement of compliance, the agency asserts that
      it caused DFAS to tender payment of $47,000 by check payable to Melville
      Johnson, P.C., as required under the Agreement, and has attached supporting
      documentation from DFAS’s computer system showing that a $47,000 check to
      Melville Johnson, P.C., cleared on September 10, 2021. CRF, Tab 4 at 3. The
      Board determines that the agency’s submission shows that it is now in compliance
      with the requirement that it pay the appellant $47,000 in tot al for compensatory
      damages and attorney’s fees.       Since the appellant has not responded to the
      agency’s assertions and evidence of compliance, the Board assumes he is
      satisfied. See Baumgartner v. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
      111 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 9 (2009).
¶11         Based upon the foregoing, the Board finds the agency in compliance and
      dismisses the petition for enforcement. This is the final decision of the Merit
      Systems Protection Board in this compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of
      Federal Regulations, section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

      5
        A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he degree of relevant evidenc e that a
      reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find
      that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).
                                                                                      6

                  NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                        YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                       ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
      You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of
the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.                              You
must file your attorney fees motion with the office that issued the initial decision
on your appeal.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
      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

6
  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

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
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
                                                                                  8

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. 420 (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
                                                                                      9

      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 describe d 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. 7   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:

7
   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

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