Court Opinion

ID: 9396968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 06:00:11.926281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.566916
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     TOMMY DEAN BAKER,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  PH-0752-18-0217-X-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: May 23, 2023
                         Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Tommy Dean Baker, Mount Hope, West Virginia, pro se.

           Daniel S. Lacy, North Chicago, Illinois, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         In a March 28, 2019 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge
     found the agency in noncompliance with a settlement agreement that had been
     entered into the record for enforcement by the Board in the underlying appeal and
     granted the appellant’s petition for enforcement.       Baker v. Department of the
     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     Army, MSPB Docket No. PH-0752-18-0217-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 5,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID); Baker v. Department of the Army, MSPB
     Docket No. PH-0752-18-0217-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 15, Initial Decision
     (ID). 2 For the reasons discussed below, we now find the agency in compl iance
     and DISMISS the appellant’s petition for enforcement.

         DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2         In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge found the
     agency in noncompliance with the settlement agreement to the extent it fa iled to
     cancel the appellant’s 30-day suspension and replace it with a 14-day suspension,
     document such replacement in the appellant’s Official Personnel Folder (OPF),
     and pay him appropriate back pay. 3 CID at 3-7. Accordingly, the administrative
     judge granted the appellant’s petition for enforcement and ordered the agency to:
     (1) cancel and replace the appellant’s 30-day suspension with a 14-day

     2
       The June 26, 2018 initial decision entering the settlement agreement into the record
     for enforcement and dismissing the appeal as settled became the final decision of the
     Board on July 31, 2018, after neither party filed a petition for administrative review.
     ID at 3.
     3
       The administrative judge also held that the settlement agreement did not violate
     Executive Order (EO) 13839, section 5, and that the EO did not preclude the agency
     from complying with the settlement term requiring it to reduce the 30 -day suspension to
     a 14-day suspension. CID at 5-6. Although neither party has challenged this finding,
     we address it because the administrative judge properly accepted the settlement
     agreement into the record for enforcement only if the settlement agreement was lawful.
     See Massey v. Office of Personnel Management, 91 M.S.P.R. 289, ¶ 4 (2002) (before
     accepting a settlement agreement into the record for enforcement, the Board must
     determine, among other things, whether the agreement is lawful on its face), overruled
     on other grounds by Delorme v. Department of the Interior, 124 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶¶ 11-21
     (2017) (holding that the Board may enforce settlement agreements that have been
     entered into the record, independent of any prior finding of Board jurisdiction over the
     underlying matter being settled). We agree with the administrative judge’s reasoning
     and conclusion regarding the lawfulness of the settlement agreement, and find that the
     settlement agreement was properly entered into the record for enforcement. We
     additionally note that EO 13839 was revoked on January 22, 2021, via EO 14003, and
     that the Office of Personnel Management repealed its regulations implementing
     EO 13839 on December 12, 2022.
                                                                                       3

     suspension, and document this change on a Standard Form (SF) 50, which was to
     be placed in the appellant’s OPF; and (2) pay the appellant back pay as specified
     by paragraph 3(b) of the settlement agreement. CID at 7.
¶3        Neither party filed any submission with the Clerk of the Board within the
     time limit set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114.      As such, pursuant to 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.183(b)-(c), the administrative judge’s findings of noncompliance became
     final, and the appellant’s petition for enforcement was referred to the Board for a
     final decision on issues of compliance. Baker v. Department of the Army, MSPB
     Docket No. PH-0752-18-0217-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1. In a
     May 6, 2019 acknowledgment order, the Clerk of the Board directed the agency
     to submit evidence showing it had complied with the actions identified in the
     compliance initial decision. Id. at 3. The Clerk informed the appellant that he
     could respond to any submission from the agency within 20 calendar days of the
     submission and that, if he did not respond, the Board might assume he was
     satisfied and dismiss his petition for enforcement. Id.
¶4        On May 21, 2019, the agency submitted two compliance submissions to the
     Board.   CRF, Tabs 2-3.      Therein, the agency stated and provided evidence
     reflecting that it had removed from the appellant’s OPF the SF -50 documenting
     the 30-day suspension and replaced it with one showing a 14-day suspension.
     CRF, Tab 2 at 4-6. The agency also stated and provided evidence showing that it
     gave corrected timecards and time and attendance records to the Defense Finance
     and Accounting Service (DFAS) so that DFAS could process the ap pellant’s back
     pay. CRF, Tab 2 at 4, 7, Tab 3 at 3-5. The appellant did not respond to the
     agency’s compliance submissions despite being notified of his opportunity to do
     so and being cautioned that the Board might assume he is satisfied and dismiss
     his petition for enforcement if he did not respond. Accordingly, we assume that
     the appellant is satisfied with the agency’s compliance.      See Baumgartner v.
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, 111 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 9 (2009).
                                                                                           4

¶5         In light of the agency’s evidence of compliance and the lack of any
     response from the appellant, we find the agency in compliance and dismiss 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)).

                              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 seek ing 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 d ecision, 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

     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

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
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
                                                                                  6

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

      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
                                                                                      7

      (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 a ny 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.

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

      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.