Court Opinion

ID: 9410605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-22 06:00:18.205593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.948168
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DONOVAN ETHERIDGE,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          AT-1221-17-0769-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: July 21, 2023
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

           Charity Gilchrist-Davis, Esquire, and Roderick T. Cooks, Esquire,
             Birmingham, Alabama, for the appellant.

           Daniel Dougherty, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for the agency.

           Kathryn R. Shelton, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his individual right of action (IRA) appeal as untimely filed . For the
     reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review ,

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     REVERSE the initial decision, and REMAND the case to the regional office for
     further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2        The appellant held a General Engineer position with the agency’s Army
     Space and Strategic Defense Command in Huntsville, Alabama. Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 1. On September 5, 2017, he filed the instant appeal, concerning
     what he characterized as a January 3, 2017 reassignment or removal. Id. at 3, 5.
     With his initial pleading, the appellant indicated that he previously had filed a
     grievance on April 20, 2017, followed by a June 15, 2017 whistleblowing
     complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), both about the same action.
     Id. at 4. The appellant did not submit any evidence of the g rievance but did
     submit documentation of the OSC complaint. Namely, he presented a June 15,
     2017 preliminary determination letter from OSC, along with OSC’s June 30, 2017
     close-out letter, which generally describes the appellant’s allegations of
     whistleblower retaliation. IAF, Tab 2 at 2-8.
¶3        The administrative judge issued an acknowledgment order, construing the
     appellant’s case as an IRA appeal.       IAF, Tab 3.    She separately issued a
     timeliness order, warning that the appellant’s IRA appeal appeared to be untimely
     by 2 days. IAF, Tab 4. That order instructed the appellant to present argument
     and evidence concerning the timeliness of his IRA appeal. Id. at 3. After the
     appellant failed to respond within the time provided for doing so, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision that dismissed the instant IRA
     appeal as untimely.   IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision.    The appellant has filed a
     petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1 -2, 4. The agency has
     filed a response. PFR File, Tab 6.
¶4        Under 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3)(A), once OSC closes its investigation into a
     complaint, an appellant may file an IRA appeal with the Board within 60 days.
     Under the Board’s regulations implementing that statutory time limit, an IRA
                                                                                        3

     appeal must be filed no later than 65 days after the date that OSC issues its
     close-out letter, or, if the letter is received more than 5 days after its issuance,
     within 60 days of the date of receipt. 5 C.F.R. § 1209.5(a)(1).
¶5         As the administrative judge correctly noted, the 65 th day following OSC’s
     closeout letter was September 3, 2017.        IAF, Tab 2 at 2 -4.     However, the
     administrative judge failed to note that September 3, 2017, was a Sunday and that
     September 4, 2017, was Labor Day, a Federal holiday.                   Under these
     circumstances, the filing period for the appellant’s IRA appeal included the first
     workday that followed, September 5, 2017. See, e.g., Pry v. Department of the
     Navy, 59 M.S.P.R. 440, 442-43 (1993) (finding that the 65-day filing deadline for
     IRA appeals includes the next available business day if the deadline would
     otherwise fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday). Accordingly, we find
     that the appellant’s September 5, 2017 IRA appeal was timely, and the appeal
     must be remanded for further adjudication.
¶6         On remand, the administrative judge should develop the record, as needed,
     regarding the appellant’s election of remedies, jurisdiction, and , if necessary, the
     merits of his claim before issuing a remand initial decision.

                                           ORDER
¶7         For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
     for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

     FOR THE BOARD:                            /s/ for
                                               Jennifer Everling
                                               Acting Clerk of the Board
     Washington, D.C.