Court Opinion

ID: 9373291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:59.240907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.749614
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JOHN DOE,                                       DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  DC-0752-16-0587-I-1

                  v.

     AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL                        DATE: October 25, 2022
       DEVELOPMENT,
                  Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           John Doe, pro se.

           Sara Ryan, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her termination appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant
     petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision
     contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneou s 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 af fected 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 decis ion. 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113(b).
¶2           As the administrative judge found in the initial decision, the agency
     terminated the appellant from her Foreign Service Limited Officer position
     effective August 19, 2015. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6, Initial Decision (ID)
     at 1.     After receiving a final agency decision on her equal employment
     opportunity (EEO) complaint, the appellant filed a Board appeal and requested a
     hearing. ID at 2; IAF, Tab 1. She made allegations of harassment, delays in the
     EEO process, and retaliation for EEO activity.          IAF, Tab 1 at 5.         The
     administrative judge informed the appellant that the Board may not have
     jurisdiction over her appeal because she was a member of the Foreign Service.
     IAF, Tab 5.      He issued an order directing her to show cause why the appeal
     should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but she did not respond. Id.
¶3           Without holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge issued an
     initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.       ID at 2, 4.
     Specifically, he found that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(6), the Board lacks the
     authority to review her termination because the appellant was a member of the
     Foreign Service. ID at 2-3.
                                                                                              3

¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1. She does not dispute that the Board lacks jurisdiction over her appeal
     and admits that the appeal should not have been filed. Id. Instead, she requests
     that the Board not issue a decision, citing privacy concerns. Id. She includes a
     letter from the agency, which she purportedly did not receive until after issuance
     of the initial decision, explaining that the agency inadvertently included Board
     appeal rights in the final agency decision on her EEO complaint. Id. at 8. 2 The
     agency has not filed a response.
¶5         For the reasons contained in the initial decision, we agree with the
     administrative judge’s finding that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appeal
     because the appellant was a member of the Foreign Service. ID at 2-3; see Ang v.
     Department of State, 103 M.S.P.R. 324, ¶¶ 8-9 (2006) (finding that the appellant
     failed to establish jurisdiction over his appeal under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 because
     he was a member of the Foreign Service). Moreover, we deny the appellant’s
     privacy-related request because her identity has been protected by allowing her to
     proceed anonymously as John Doe. 3

     2
       Assuming that the agency letter was unavailable prior to the close of the record below
     despite the appellant’s due diligence, we find that it does not affect the outcome of the
     appeal. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, 7; see Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211,
     214 (1980) (stating that the Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for
     the first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable
     before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence); see also Russo v.
     Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980) (stating that the Board generally
     will not grant a petition for review based on new evidence absent a showing that it is of
     sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision).
     3
       The Board no longer uses Jane Doe and John Doe, universally using the generic “John
     Doe” for all appeals when anonymity is granted. Doe v. Pension Benefit Guaranty
     Corporation, 117 M.S.P.R. 579 n.1 (2012). Further, with the exception of the Board’s
     decision in this matter, which is available on the Board’s website, the case file from this
     appeal is protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 and is not available to the public through
     e-Appeal Online or the Board’s website. While MSPB’s adjudication records may be
     requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), all records are reviewed in
     accordance with the FOIA and may be withheld from release if warranted by a FOIA
     exemption.
                                                                                           4

¶6         Accordingly, we find that the administrative judge properly dismissed the
     appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
           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.

           (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).

     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

      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 partic ular
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
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
                                                                                  6

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 th eir 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:
                            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
                                                                                      7

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

      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

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.
                                                                             8

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.