Court Opinion

ID: 9958510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 16:01:02.692088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:27.329302
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

GENARO MAMARIL,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
           Appellant,                           DC-0752-17-0034-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,                         DATE: April 8, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Brook L. Beesley , Alameda, California, for the appellant.

      Ashley Geisendorfer , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his constructive suspension appeal for lack of jurisdiction.        For the
reasons set forth below, the appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as
untimely filed without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                   BACKGROUND
         The appellant filed the instant appeal, alleging that he was constructively
suspended for more than 14 days after the agency denied his request for
reasonable accommodation.        Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 3, 11.        On
December 4, 2017, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 26, Initial Decision (ID) at 1. The
initial decision stated it would become final on January 8, 2018, unless a petition
for review was filed by that date. ID at 4-5.
         The appellant filed an untimely petition for review on February 26, 2019.
Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response urging, as
relevant here, that the petition for review be dismissed as untimely filed. PFR
File, Tab 3 at 5-7. The appellant has replied to the agency’s response. PFR File,
Tab 4.

                  DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
         To be timely, a petition for review must be filed within 35 days of the date
of the initial decision’s issuance or, if the appellant shows that the initial decision
was received more than 5 days after the date of issuance, within 30 days after the
date he received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). As the party filing
the petition for review, the appellant bears the burden of proof with
regard to timeliness, which he must establish by preponderant evidence.
Perry v. Office of Personnel Management, 111 M.S.P.R. 337, ¶ 5 (2009); see
5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B) (explaining that an appellant has the burden of
proving the timeliness of his appeal by preponderant evidence). The Board will
excuse the late filing of a petition for review only on a showing of good cause for
the delay. Perry, 111 M.S.P.R. 337, ¶ 6; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). To establish
good cause for an untimely filing, a party must show that he exercised
due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances of the
case. Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980).
                                                                                     3

To determine whether an appellant has shown good cause, the Board will consider
the length of the delay, the reasonableness of his excuse and his showing of due
diligence, whether he is proceeding pro se, and whether he has presented evidence
of the existence of circumstances beyond his control that affected his ability to
comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune which
similarly shows a causal relationship to his inability to timely file his petition.
Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d per
curiam, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table).
      Here, the administrative judge informed the appellant that the initial
decision had a January 8, 2018 finality date, unless either party filed a petition for
review by that date. ID at 4-5. Although the appellant claims that he did not
receive the initial decision, the decision contained a certificate of service
certifying that it had been mailed to both the appellant and his representative at
their addresses of record on December 4, 2017. IAF, Tab 1 at 2, 6, Tab 27. A
letter properly addressed, stamped, and mailed is presumed to have been duly
delivered to the addressee. Gross v. U.S. Postal Service, 103 M.S.P.R. 334, ¶ 7
(2006); Hall v. Defense Logistics Agency, 69 M.S.P.R. 17, 20 (1995), aff’d per
curiam, 106 F.3d 426 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Table). Further, receipt by an appellant’s
duly designated representative constitutes constructive receipt by the appellant.
Darby v. U.S. Postal Service, 29 M.S.P.R. 582, 583 (1986). Thus, the initial
decision is presumed to have been delivered.
      However, on December 15, 2018, the appellant’s representative sent a fax
to the regional office indicating, under penalty of perjury, that neither he nor the
appellant had received the initial decision, and he requested that they be served.
PFR File, Tab 1 at 7-9. Attached to that fax were March 13 and October 3, 2018
statements signed by the appellant, in which he similarly stated under penalty of
perjury that he had not yet received a copy of the initial decision. Id. at 10-11.
The appellant and his representative’s sworn statements are sufficient evidence
to rebut the presumption of delivery.        PFR File, Tab 1 at 11; see, e.g.,
                                                                                       4

Foust v. Department of the Treasury, 80 M.S.P.R. 477, ¶¶ 6, 8 (1998) (finding
that an appellant’s sworn statement on her initial appeal as to the date she
received the agency’s removal decision, and her subsequent unsworn statement
with her petition for review as to the same, were sufficient to rebut the
presumption of delivery of the decision).        In response to the representative’s
December 15, 2018 letter, on December 17, 2018, the regional office faxed him a
copy of the initial decision.     PFR File, Tab 4 at 3, 7-19.        Thus, the Board
finds that   the   appellant   constructively   received   the   initial   decision   on
December 17, 2018.
        Based on that receipt date, the appellant’s petition for review would have
been due on or before January 16, 2019, but the filing deadline was extended due
to the partial Government shutdown from December 22, 2018, through
January 25, 2019. Merit Systems Protection Board Press Release, Status of the
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board During a Partial Government Shutdown
(Dec.                                    21,                                     2018),
https://www.mspb.gov/publicaffairs/press_releases/Status_of_the_MSPB_During
_a_Partial_Government_Shutdown_1580906.pdf (last visited Apr. 8, 2024).
Thus, the deadline to file the petition for review was extended to February 19,
2019.    The appellant, through his attorney, filed his petition for review on
February 26, 2019, 7 days past the deadline. 2 PFR File, Tab 1. Thus, his petition
for review was untimely filed. See Belcher v. U.S. Postal Service, 101 M.S.P.R.
58, ¶ 7 (2006) (declining to excuse a 6-day filing delay when the appellant failed
to show due diligence, even though he was proceeding pro se and the filing delay
was not particularly lengthy); Lockhart v. Office of Personnel Management,

2
  On review, the appellant argues that 5 days were added to his deadline to respond
under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.23. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2. However, the controlling regulation is
5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), which concerns the deadline for filing a petition for review.
Under that regulation, because the appellant has shown the initial decision was received
more than 5 days after issuance, his 30-day deadline began to run on the date he
constructively received the initial decision, which was when it was received by his
representative via fax on December 17, 2018. PFR File, Tab 4 at 3, 7-19.
                                                                                      5

94 M.S.P.R. 396, ¶¶ 7-8 (2003) (declining to excuse a 5-day delay in filing a
petition for review when the pro se appellant failed to show good cause for the
delay).
      The appellant has offered no explanation for this delay in filing his petition
for review after his receipt of the initial decision. His arguments regarding the
merits of the initial decision dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction do not
establish good cause for his untimely filing. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3; see Wright v.
Department of the Treasury, 113 M.S.P.R. 124, ¶ 7 (2010) (finding that
arguments regarding the merits of a case do not establish good cause for an
untimely filed petition for review).
      Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness
of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the
Board regarding the appellant’s constructive suspension appeal.

                         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
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.

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 notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                         6

      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
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
                                                                                  7

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. 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:
                                                                                      8

                            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
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).

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

      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:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.