Court Opinion

ID: 9385554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 14:00:45.942591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.829473
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1079    Document: 27           Page: 1       Filed: 04/07/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                SCHWANDA G. HAMMOND,
                      Petitioner

                                  v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-1079
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-3330-18-0237-C-1.

           -------------------------------------------------

                SCHWANDA G. HAMMOND,
                      Petitioner

                                  v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-1080
                  ______________________
Case: 23-1079    Document: 27     Page: 2    Filed: 04/07/2023

 2                                          HAMMOND   v. MSPB

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-1221-19-0492-W-1.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: April 7, 2023
                  ______________________

     SCHWANDA GAIL HAMMOND, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

    KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH, Office of the General
 Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board,
 Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
 ALLISON JANE BOYLE.
                 ______________________

  Before PROST, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
      Schwanda G. Hammond appeals two decisions of the
 Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing her
 cases: first, a compliance case, and second, a whistleblower
 individual right of action. The Board dismissed both cases
 in light of a settlement agreement that resolved seven of
 Ms. Hammond’s pending cases. We consider both cases to-
 gether in light of the global settlement agreement. For the
 reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board’s dismissal.
                        BACKGROUND

                              I
     Ms. Hammond is a former employee of the Department
 of Defense (“agency”). In March 2018, Ms. Hammond filed
 an appeal pursuant to the Veterans Employment Opportu-
 nities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”). That Board appeal, docketed
 as No. DA-3330-18-0237-I-1, alleged the agency failed to
 provide her with veterans’ preference in connection with
 two job applications as required by the VEOA.
Case: 23-1079    Document: 27      Page: 3   Filed: 04/07/2023

 HAMMOND   v. MSPB                                         3

     In July 2018, Ms. Hammond and the agency entered
 into a settlement agreement (the “VEOA settlement agree-
 ment”) mutually resolving all disputed issues. The VEOA
 settlement agreement provided in relevant part that the
 agency would pay her a lump sum of $7,000 and would ap-
 point her to a Supervisory Administrative Assistant posi-
 tion on October 1, 2018. The Board entered the VEOA
 settlement agreement into the record and dismissed the
 VEOA appeal as settled.
     In August 2019, Ms. Hammond filed a petition for en-
 forcement of the VEOA settlement agreement alleging the
 agency had delayed paying her the lump sum and appoint-
 ing her to the agreed-upon position and had retaliated
 against her. The Board docketed the appeal as No. DA-
 3330-18-0237-C-1 and designated the appeal as a “compli-
 ance case” concerning the agency’s compliance with the
 VEOA settlement agreement. In October 2019, the Board
 denied the compliance appeal, finding the agency had
 timely paid Ms. Hammond and had appointed her to the
 administrative assistant position. Ms. Hammond subse-
 quently filed an administrative petition for review of the
 administrative judge’s denial. The petition in her compli-
 ance case was pending before the Board in March 2020 at
 the time of the global settlement agreement, discussed be-
 low.
                              II
     In August 2019, Ms. Hammond filed a separate case—
 a whistleblower individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal
 under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and Whis-
 tleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012—alleging
 the agency had retaliated against her for engaging in pro-
 tected whistleblower activity. The Board docketed that ap-
 peal as No. DA-1221-19-0492-W-1. In December 2019, the
 administrative judge denied Ms. Hammond’s IRA, holding
 that the Board lacked jurisdiction because Ms. Hammond
 had “failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of a protected
Case: 23-1079    Document: 27       Page: 4    Filed: 04/07/2023

 4                                            HAMMOND   v. MSPB

 disclosure.” Ms. Hammond then filed a timely petition for
 review in January 2020. Like her compliance petition, the
 IRA petition was also before the Board at the time of the
 March 2020 global settlement agreement.
                              III
     In March 2020, Ms. Hammond and the agency entered
 into a global settlement agreement. Although the settle-
 ment arose out of another appeal—a removal appeal pend-
 ing before an administrative judge—the global settlement
 resolved all seven appeals Ms. Hammond then had pending
 before the Board. 1 As part of the settlement, Ms. Ham-
 mond agreed that she would “withdraw[], with prejudice,
 any pending complaint(s), grievance(s), cause(s) of action,
 formal or informal, of any nature or cause on any basis,”
 and “in any stage of the complaint or proceeding,” against
 the agency. App’x 32. 2 Ms. Hammond also waived all ap-
 peal rights related to any act or omission occurring before
 the date of execution of the settlement agreement and “all
 future [Board] appeal rights.” Id.
     The agreement specified that it would be entered into
 the record for enforcement only in the Board appeal in
 which it was reached (i.e., the removal appeal). Although
 the clerk of the Board asked the parties to address whether
 they would like the agreement entered into the record for
 enforcement for all seven appeals, neither party responded
 to that inquiry. Thus, on September 23, 2022, the Board
 issued final orders dismissing as settled each of

     1    Of these seven cases, two cases were on adminis-
 trative petition for review before the full Board (the ap-
 peals in Docket Nos. 23-1079 and 23-1080, at issue here)
 and five other cases were pending before Board adminis-
 trative judges.
     2    We refer to the appendix filed with respondent’s in-
 formal brief in No. 23-1079 (“App’x”).
Case: 23-1079    Document: 27      Page: 5    Filed: 04/07/2023

 HAMMOND   v. MSPB                                          5

 Ms. Hammond’s seven pending cases, including the compli-
 ance appeal and IRA appeal, without entering the global
 settlement agreement into the record for enforcement. 3
 See App’x 1–4.
     Ms. Hammond now appeals the Board’s final decisions
 dismissing as settled her compliance and IRA cases that
 were pending before the Board at the time of the global set-
 tlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(b)(1)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                         DISCUSSION
      We review the Board’s decision to determine whether
 it is: “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
 otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without
 procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
 followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see also Mouton-Miller v. Merit Sys.
 Prot. Bd., 985 F.3d 864, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
     Ms. Hammond raises arguments related to the global
 settlement agreement. She alleges (among other argu-
 ments) breach of the agreement by the agency and requests
 that this court “[r]edo [the] settlement agreement for all
 cases.” Pet’r’s Br. 2–3 (No. 23-1079); Pet’r’s Br. 2–3 (No.
 23-1080).

     3    In a separate proceeding filed in August 2020 in
 her removal case, Ms. Hammond petitioned for enforce-
 ment of the global settlement agreement, alleging the
 agency has breached various provisions, including as re-
 lated to her pay and health insurance. See MSPB Case No.
 DA-0752-20-0103-C-1. The Board denied that compliance
 case, and Ms. Hammond filed an administrative petition
 for review of that decision which remains pending before
 the full Board.
Case: 23-1079    Document: 27     Page: 6    Filed: 04/07/2023

 6                                          HAMMOND   v. MSPB

     The Board did not err in dismissing Ms. Hammond’s
 appeals. As part of the global settlement agreement, Ms.
 Hammond agreed to withdraw with prejudice all of her
 pending appeals, including her compliance and IRA ap-
 peals. App’x 32. She also waived her right to appeal on the
 basis of any act or omission occurring before the execution
 of the agreement. Id. The Board determined that
 Ms. Hammond understood the terms of the settlement
 agreement. App’x 2. Indeed, the agreement provides that
 “Ms. Hammond . . . understands and agrees that she
 waives all future [Board] appeal rights, with the sole ex-
 ception of an appeal for enforcement of this Agreement.”
 App’x 32. Because the parties entered into a lawful settle-
 ment agreement freely executed by Ms. Hammond and the
 Board accordingly dismissed her compliance and IRA
 cases, she may no longer appeal either case.
     To the extent Ms. Hammond alleges breach of the set-
 tlement agreement or seeks enforcement of its terms, that
 compliance case is not properly before this court. The par-
 ties agreed that the settlement agreement would be en-
 tered into the record only for her removal case, MSPB
 Docket No. DA-0752-20-0103-I-1. App’x 2–3. Ms. Ham-
 mond may enforce the settlement agreement through an
 appeal brought in that case. And, in fact, Ms. Hammond
 has done so; she currently has a pending appeal before the
 Board in her removal case seeking enforcement of the
 global settlement agreement. 4 In any event, no enforce-
 ment petition may be brought in either her compliance or
 IRA settled cases.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered the remaining arguments in these
 cases and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing

     4  That case, which is pending before the full Board
 on an administrative petition for review, is not before us.
Case: 23-1079      Document: 27    Page: 7   Filed: 04/07/2023

 HAMMOND     v. MSPB                                       7

 reasons, we affirm the Board’s dismissal of Ms. Hammond’s
 compliance and IRA cases.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.