Court Opinion

ID: 9373358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:25.400684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.131580
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     HEATHER DOWIE,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-3443-21-0672-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: September 30, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Heather Dowie, Washington, D.C., pro se.

           Elizabeth Ghauri, 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 for lack of jurisdiction this appeal from a letter of reprimand.         On
     petition for review, the appellant argues that the agency violated the applicable
     collective bargaining agreement by not counseling her prior to issuing the letter

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     or allowing her to enter a rebuttal into her personnel file and raises an unspecified
     prohibited personnel practices claim. 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 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 avail able 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).
¶2         The administrative judge found that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the
     appellant’s letter of reprimand as an otherwise appealable action. Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 11, Initial Decision (ID) at 4. Accordingly, she concluded that
     the Board does not have jurisdiction over any claims of discrimination, prohibited
     personnel practices, or harmful error. ID at 4-5. To the extent the appellant was
     attempting to assert that the Board has jurisdiction over her claims as an
     individual right of action (IRA) appeal, the administrative judge found that the
     appellant failed to show that she exhausted her administrative rem edy before the
     Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an IRA
     appeal. ID at 2-3; see Bishop v. Department of Agriculture, 2022 MSPB 28, ¶ 9.
¶3         The appellant presents new argument and evidence on review. The Board
     generally will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for
     review absent a showing that it is based on new and mater ial evidence not
     previously available despite the party’s due diligence. Clay v. Department of the
                                                                                          3

     Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016).            However, we have considered the
     appellant’s arguments and evidence to the extent they impact the Board’s
     jurisdiction, which is always before the Board and can be raised by the parties or
     sua sponte by the Board at any time.            Ney v. Department of Commerce,
     115 M.S.P.R. 204, ¶ 7 (2010). As discussed below, we find that the appellant has
     not provided a basis for granting review.
¶4         For the first time on review, the appellant submits a copy of her written
     discovery requests to the agency, dated before the initial decision, which she
     states the agency ignored. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3-4, 98-106. 2
     She argues that the administrative judge denied her “the ability to submit” any
     resulting evidence. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3-4. In an acknowledgment order, the
     administrative judge advised the parties that they could engage in discovery and
     of the deadlines for doing so. IAF, Tab 2 at 3-4. She also generally indicated
     that parties could request extensions “for good cause shown.”         Id. at 5. Two
     weeks later, the administrative judge ordered the appellant to submit evidence and
     argument showing the Board has jurisdiction over her appeal. IAF, Tab 5 at 2.
     She further stated that if the appellant failed to respond or make a nonfrivolous
     allegation of jurisdiction, the administrative judge would dismiss the appeal. Id.
¶5         An appellant is entitled to request discovery of relevant materials to assist
     her in meeting her burden of establishing Board jurisdiction.           See Russo v.
     Department of the Navy, 85 M.S.P.R. 12, ¶ 8 (1999). The jurisdictional order and
     the appellant’s response to that order predated the deadline for the appellant to
     file a motion to compel.          PFR File, Tab 1 at 98-100; see 5 C.F.R.

     2
       The appellant submits with her petition for review a copy of the initial decision and
     her response to the administrative judge’s jurisdictional order, including attachments.
     PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-97. Copies of the initial decision and the appellant’s response to
     the order are already part of the record, and therefore the documents do not constitute
     new evidence.      IAF, Tabs 9, 11; see Moore v. Department of Transportation,
     64 M.S.P.R. 298, 301 (1994). Nonetheless, as discussed below, we have considered the
     appellant’s jurisdictional response and the initial decision in connection with the
     question of our jurisdiction over this appeal.
                                                                                      4

     § 1201.73(d)(2)-(3) (providing that a party must respond to a discovery request
     within 20 days of service and that a motion to compel generally must be filed
     within the following 10 days). The parties are expected to start and complete
     discovery with minimal intervention from the Board. McClenning v. Department
     of the Army, 2022 MSPB 3, ¶ 19. Given the clear notice from the administrative
     judge that the appeal might be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the
     information in the acknowledgment order advising the parties of the requirements
     for requesting an extension, it was incumbent on the appellant to inform the
     administrative judge that she wished to receive the agency’s discovery responses
     before addressing the jurisdictional issue.     See Szejner v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 99 M.S.P.R. 275, ¶ 5 (2005) (concluding that an appellant was
     precluded from raising the agency’s failure to respond to discovery on review
     when he failed to file a motion to compel below), aff’d, 167 F. App’x 217 (Fed Cir.
     2006). Because the appellant did not seek an extension to complete discovery
     below, we decline to consider this issue for the first time on review .
¶6         Further, even assuming the administrative judge erred in the procedures
     leading up her dismissal of the appeal, her alleged error would not warrant
     reversing the initial decision. An administrative judge’s procedural error is of no
     legal consequence unless it is shown to have adversely affected a party’s
     substantive rights.   Karapinka v. Department of Energy, 6 M.S.P.R. 124, 127
     (1981). The appellant’s discovery requests sought information and documents
     concerning her disagreement with the letter of reprimand, her allegations of
     agency error in issuing the reprimand, and what appear to be her alleged
     disclosures.   PFR File, Tab 1 at 101-06.      The administrative judge found the
     appellant failed to establish jurisdiction over her reprimand as an otherwise
     appealable action. ID at 4. The administrative judge also found that the appellant
     failed to establish IRA jurisdiction because she did not exhaust her OSC remedy.
     ID at 2-3. The appellant’s discovery did not concern these matters; therefore, she
                                                                                            5

     has failed to demonstrate how the administrative judge’s alleged error would
     prevent dismissal of her appeal.
¶7         The appellant also seems to suggest that the administrative judge denied her
     due process by not permitting her a hearing.          PFR File, Tab 1 at 3-4.        We
     disagree.   An appellant generally is entitled to a hearing on the jurisdictional
     issue in an adverse action appeal when she makes allegations of fact which, if
     proven, could establish a prima facie case that the Board has jurisdiction over the
     matter in issue. Graves v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 123 M.S.P.R. 434,
     ¶ 22 (2016). In an IRA appeal, an appellant is not entitled to a jurisdictional
     hearing but is entitled to a hearing on the merits if, as relevant here, she proves
     she exhausted her OSC remedy. Id., ¶ 22. As the administrative judge correctly
     found, a letter of reprimand is not an adverse action over which the Board has
     chapter 75 jurisdiction. 5 U.S.C. § 7512; ID at 4-5. The administrative judge
     also properly concluded that the appellant failed to establish Board jurisdiction
     because she did not prove exhaustion of her OSC remedy. ID at 2-3; IAF, Tab 1
     at 4, Tab 9 at 9; PFR File, Tab 1 at 8.
¶8         Accordingly, the appellant’s new evidence and argument on review do not
     provide a basis to disturb the administrative judge’s findings, and we affirm the
     initial decision.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 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

     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 no tice, the
     Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                        6

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).
      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
                                                                                    7

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 receive s 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 origi n, 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
                                                                                      8

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
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. 4   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

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.
                                                                                  9

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
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.