Court Opinion

ID: 9373270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:51.604545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.226719
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     TERESA GILBERT,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DC-0752-16-0479-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: October 28, 2022
                 Agency.

                THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Kevin L. Owen, Esquire, Silver Spring, Maryland, for the appellant.

           Michael J. McHugh and Paul L. Lee, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for the
             agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her involuntary retirement appeal for lack of jurisdiction . Generally,
     we grant petitions such as this one only when:         the initial decision contains
     erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is bas ed on an erroneous

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 VACATE the administrative judge’s analysis concerning the
     validity of the settlement agreement and the voluntariness of the appellant’s
     retirement, we AFFIRM the initial decision.

                                        BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant filed a Board appeal, which the parties settled.           Gilbert v.
     Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-15-0568-I-1, Initial
     Decision (0568 ID) at 1-2. After determining that the settlement agreement was
     voluntarily entered into, understood by the parties, and lawful on its face, the
     administrative judge dismissed the appeal as settled. Id. The parties expressly
     agreed not to enter the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement
     purposes. 2 Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 13, 15. The initial decision became
     final after neither party filed a petition for review. 0568 ID at 3.

     2
       In the prior appeal, the administrative judge erroneously stated that she was entering
     the settlement agreement into the record, contrary to the intent of the parties. 0568 ID
     at 1-2; Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 13, 15. In the instant appeal, however, she
     correctly noted this error and, consistent with the parties’ intentions, found that the
     agreement was not to be entered into the record for enforcement purposes . IAF, Tab 9
     at 1; IAF, Tab 14, Initial Decision at 1-2; see Walker-King v. Department of Veterans
     Affairs, 119 M.S.P.R. 414, ¶¶ 9-10 (2013) (finding that because the settlement
     agreement is a contract it is to be interpreted consistent with the intent of the parties).
                                                                                       3

¶3        In relevant part, the agency agreed to consider the appellant’s request to
     retire pursuant to a Voluntary Early Retirement Authority or Voluntary
     Separation Incentive Payment Authority and to pay her two lump sum payments
     and attorney fees. IAF, Tab 6 at 13-14. After the appellant allegedly failed to
     receive any payments, she filed a Board appeal claiming that the agency’s
     promise to pay was misleading and that she retired in detrimental reliance on this
     promise.   IAF, Tab 1 at 6, Tab 10 at 6-7.      She filed an additional pleading,
     alleging that the agency’s failure to adjust her leave and to provide her with a
     clean record, as promised, similarly rendered her retirement involuntary. IAF,
     Tab 12 at 5-6. She contended that her appeal was timely filed. IAF, Tab 8 at 5-6.
¶4        After the appellant clarified her intent to file an involuntary retirement
     claim, the administrative judge notified the appellant of her jurisdictional burden
     and provided the parties an opportunity to respond. IAF, Tab 1 at 2, Tabs 2-3, 9.
     Both parties responded.     IAF, Tabs 10-11.      The administrative judge then
     dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, without holding the requested
     hearing. IAF, Tab 1 at 2, Tab 14, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 8. She found that
     because the appellant was raising noncompliance claims, as opposed to
     challenging the validity of the settlement agreement, her allegations were more
     appropriate for a petition for enforcement. ID at 4-5. She then analyzed the
     appellant’s allegations of agency noncompliance with the lump sum payment
     provision as an involuntary retirement claim.     ID at 5-8.   She found that the
     appellant failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction over that
     claim because she did not demonstrate that the agency’s actions rendered the
     terms of the agreement misleading. ID at 6-7. In making these findings, the
     administrative judge did not consider the appellant’s final response to the
     jurisdictional order because she determined that it was filed after the record
     closed and the agency did not submit any new evidence or make any new
     arguments warranting further reply. ID at 4.
                                                                                         4

¶5         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision. Petition
     for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response , to which the
     appellant has replied. PFR File, Tabs 4-5.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6         On review, the appellant alleges that the administrative judge erred in
     adjudicating her involuntary retirement appeal as a petition for enforcement. PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 5-6. She also disputes the administrative judge’s finding that she
     failed to nonfrivolously allege Board jurisdiction over her involuntary retirement
     claim. Id. at 6-10. She further alleges that the administrative judge improperly
     excluded her additional jurisdictional response from consideration, as it was
     timely submitted before the close of the record. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, 8, Tab 5
     at 4-5.
¶7         The record reflects that the appellant, a registered e-filer, submitted her
     additional response to the Board’s e-Appeal repository on the day the record
     closed. IAF, Tab 1 at 2, Tab 9 at 4, Tabs 11-12. The date of filing by e-file is the
     date of electronic submission. 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.4(l), 1201.14(m)(1). Thus, we
     find that the appellant’s response was timely filed and consider it on review.
     However, we find that the appellant’s allegations do not provide a basis for
     finding Board jurisdiction over her retirement. Panter v. Department of the Air
     Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding that an adjudicatory error that is not
     prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights does not provide a basis for reversal of
     an initial decision).
¶8         We discern no error with the administrative judge’s finding that to the
     extent that the appellant’s allegations may constitute a petition for enforcement,
     the Board lacks jurisdiction over such an appeal because the settlement agreement
                                                                                           5

      was not entered into the record for enforcement purposes. 3 ID at 5; Barker v.
      Department of Agriculture, 100 M.S.P.R. 695, ¶ 6 (2006).
¶9          The appellant reargues on review that she intended to file an involuntary
      retirement appeal, not a petition for enforcement. IAF, Tab 1 at 6, Tab 3 at 4;
      PFR File Tab 1 at 5. The Board has jurisdiction over a retirement appeal if the
      appellant shows by preponderant evidence that the retirement was involuntary and
      therefore tantamount to a removal.           Freeborn v. Department of Justice,
      119 M.S.P.R. 290, ¶ 9 (2013). However, an appellant who has retired pursuant to
      a settlement agreement cannot prevail on her involuntary retirement claims
      without first convincing the Board that the agreement and the initial decision
      finding it valid should be set aside.         Mahoney v. Department of Labor,
      56 M.S.P.R. 69, 72 (1992).      Therefore, contrary to the administrative judge’s
      determination, we find that, by alleging that the agency’s misleading statements
      about the settlement agreement’s terms induced her into retiring, the appellant is
      challenging the validity of the settlement agreement. ID at 5.
¶10         The appellant may challenge the validity of the settlement agreement,
      regardless of whether it has been entered into the record for enforcement
      purposes. Barker, 100 M.S.P.R. 695, ¶ 4. However, the administrative judge
      lacked the authority to reopen the settlement agreement once the initial decision
      was issued. Mahoney, 56 M.S.P.R. 69, 73 n.2; see Carroll v. Office of Personnel
      Management, 114 M.S.P.R. 310, ¶ 9 (2010) (finding that the authority to reopen
      or reinstate appeals in which there has been a final Board decision is reserved for
      the Board). Thus, any attack on the validity of a settlement agreement must be

      3
        The Board lacks enforcement authority over the settlement agreement because the
      parties agreed not to enter it into the record for enforcement purposes and not, as the
      appellant contends, because the Board made no prior jurisdictio nal finding concerning
      the underlying action that was the subject of the appeal. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6; see
      Delorme v. Department of the Interior, 124 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶¶ 16, 21 (2017) (finding that
      the Board retains enforcement authority over settlement agreements entered into the
      record for that purpose, independent of a prior finding of jurisdiction over the
      underlying action).
                                                                                            6

      made in the form of a petition for review of the initial decision that dismissed the
      case as settled. Weldon v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 119 M.S.P.R. 478, ¶ 5
      (2013). Because the appellant retired pursuant to a settlement agreement in the
      course of her prior Board appeal, she may not collaterally attack the validity of
      the agreement in this involuntary retirement appeal filed at the regional office
      level. Mahoney, 56 M.S.P.R. at 72.
¶11         Accordingly, we vacate those portions of the initial decision addressing the
      validity of the settlement agreement and the voluntariness of the appellant’s
      retirement. We affirm, as modified, the initial decision dismissing the appellant’s
      involuntary retirement appeal for lack of jurisdiction.        To the extent that the
      appellant is challenging the validity of the settlement agreement, she may file a
      separate petition for review of the initial decision issued in Gilbert v. Department
      of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-15-0568-I-1. We note, however, that
      such petition for review would likely be untimely and require explanation for the
      delay in filing.

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
             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
      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 an d
      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

      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.
                                                                                        7

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
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
                                                                                    8

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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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
                                                                                      9

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 competent jurisdiction. 5 The court of appeals must receive your

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.
                                                                                10

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.
      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.