Court Opinion

ID: 9959452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 18:01:01.512131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:19.608738
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

    JOANNE M. STUCKER,                           DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                     PH-0752-18-0227-I-1

               v.

    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                       DATE: April 10, 2024
      AFFAIRS,
                Agency.

         THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

        Kimberly D. Borland , Esquire, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, for the
          appellant.

        M. Creston Rice , Esquire, Bedford, Massachusetts, 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 her termination appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On petition for review,
the appellant reasserts that she was entitled to chapter 75 and regulatory appeal
rights because she met the definition of employee under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

(i); her termination was without merit; and the agency committed harmful
procedural error by denying her minimum due process.              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 available
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. Except as
expressly MODIFIED to address the appellant’s challenge to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(i), we
AFFIRM the initial decision.
      The appellant recognizes that, in Forest v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
47   F.3d   409,   411-12   (Fed. Cir.   1995),   the   Federal    Circuit   held   that
section 7511(a)(1)(C)(i) applies only to initial appointments pending conversion
to the competitive service. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 7. Under
this provision, an individual in the excepted service (other than a preference
eligible) “who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial
appointment pending conversion to the competitive service” has a right to appeal
to the Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(i). The court in Forest interpreted this
language to find that “[s]ection 7511(a)(1)(C)(i) covers only excepted service
employees serving ‘under an initial appointment pending conversion to the
competitive service,’ provided they are not serving a probationary or trial period
under such an appointment.” Forest, 47 F.3d at 412. The appellant reargues that
                                                                                      3

the Board should not rely on the Federal Circuit’s construction of the statutory
provision because it was overly restrictive and not in accordance with the plain
language of the statute. Id. at 6-8. Specifically, she asserts that “[i]nstead of
giving the plain meaning to the words of the statute in the order it was written,
the [c]ourt juxtaposed two phrases and added the qualifier ‘provided[,]’
completely changing the plain language of the statute.”            She reasserts that,
instead, it is more appropriate to interpret section 7511(a)(1)(C)(i) as applying to
excepted-service positions generally, such as hers. Id. at 6-7.
      The appellant’s argument regarding the court’s interpretation of section
7511(a)(1)(C)(i) is well-taken.     However, the Board is bound by the Federal
Circuit’s decision in Forest. See Hoover v. Department of the Navy, 57 M.S.P.R.
545, 552 (1993); Fairall v. Veterans Administration, 33 M.S.P.R. 33, aff’d,
844 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding that decisions of the Federal Circuit are
controlling authority for the Board). The appellant has not shown that the Federal
Circuit has reversed or otherwise modified its decision in Forest, nor has she
explained why that decision is not controlling precedent in this case.             It is
undisputed that the appellant was not serving an initial appointment pending
conversion to the competitive service. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5; Initial Appeal File
(IAF), Tab 6 at 11. Thus, when applying the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of
section 7511(a)(1)(C)(i), the appellant did not meet the definition of employee
under that provision. See Forest, 47 F.3d at 411-12. Accordingly, the appellant
has not provided a basis for disturbing the administrative judge’s finding that she
lacked chapter 75 appeal rights. IAF, Tab 11, Initial Decision at 4.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      You may obtain

2
  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.
                                                                                        4

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.
      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
                                                                                    5

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
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 .
                                                                                    6

      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

      (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
                                                                                      7

competent jurisdiction. 3   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.
      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.

3
   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

      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.