Court Opinion

ID: 9957360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 15:00:44.18038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:17.192677
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

LENORA BONDS,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         CH-0752-18-0246-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND                       DATE: April 3, 2024
  URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Lenora Bonds , Chicago, Illinois, pro se.

      Christopher C. Ligatti , Esquire, Chicago, Illinois, 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 removal appeal as settled. 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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 agency removed the appellant from her position as a GS-7 Equal
Opportunity Assistant. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 8-12, Tab 6 at 32, 34,
36-40, 48-58, 106-16. She appealed her removal to the Board, and the parties
subsequently reached an agreement to settle the appeal. IAF, Tabs 1, 13. In a
May 3, 2018 initial decision, the administrative judge entered the settlement
agreement into the record for purposes of enforcement by the Board and
dismissed the appeal as settled. IAF, Tab 14, Initial Decision (ID) at 1-2. The
administrative judge notified the appellant that the initial decision would become
final on June 7, 2018, unless a petition for review was filed by that date. ID at 3.

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      On August 20, 2018, the appellant mailed to the Board a letter addressed to
both agency counsel and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC); the body of the letter stated that the submission constituted a
“Conjunction Settlement Agreement for Relief.” Petition for Review (PFR) File,
Tab 1. Thereafter, the Clerk of the Board requested that the appellant provide
clarity as to whether her submission constituted a petition for review or whether
she was providing the Board with a copy of an EEOC filing. PFR File, Tab 2
at 1. The appellant confirmed that her August 20, 2018 submission constituted a
petition for review of the initial decision. PFR File, Tab 3 at 1. The Clerk of the
Board subsequently notified the appellant that her petition for review was
untimely and explained that she must file a motion asking the Board to accept the
petition for review as untimely and/or to waive the time limit for good cause.
PFR File, Tab 4 at 1-2. The appellant responded, asking the Board to excuse her
late filing because, among other things, she “did not receive the initial decision
within 5 days of its issuance.” PFR File, Tab 5 at 2. The agency has responded
in opposition to the appellant’s petition for review, arguing that it is untimely
                                                                                   3

with no good cause shown and that the appellant has not shown a basis for
disturbing the initial decision. PFR File, Tab 6.
      A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the issuance of the
initial decision, or, if the petitioner shows that she received the initial decision
more than 5 days after the date of the issuance, within 30 days after the date she
received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). Here, the initial decision
was issued on May 3, 2018, and sent to the appellant via U.S. mail the same day.
IAF, Tab 15 at 1. The appellant avers that she did not receive the initial decision
within 5 days of its issuance; however, she fails to indicate the date on which she
did receive the initial decision. PFR File, Tab 5 at 2. Of note, the appellant’s
petition for review contains a handwritten notation of “5/30/18,” suggesting that
the appellant received the initial decision on or before May 30, 2018, in which
case, her petition for review was due no later than June 29, 2018. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 1; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). As she did not file her petition for review
until August 20, 2018, her submission is untimely by at least 52 days. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 3.
      The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition for review only
upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). To
establish good cause for an untimely filing, the appellant must show that she
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).
In determining whether there is good cause, the Board considers the length of the
delay, the reasonableness of the excuse and showing of due diligence, whether the
appellant is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented evidence of the
existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her ability to comply
with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune that similarly shows
a causal relationship to her inability to file a timely petition.   See Wyeroski v.
Department of Transportation, 106 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶ 7, aff’d, 253 F. App’x 950 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
                                                                                      4

         In her motion for the Board to accept her untimely filed petition for review,
the appellant seemingly alleges that she provided various documents associated
with her petition to the agency in lieu of the Board.          PFR File, Tab 5 at 2.
However, an appellant’s failure to follow explicit filing instructions generally
does not constitute good cause for an ensuing delay, and we find no indication
that the appellant mistakenly sent a petition to another entity within the time
limit.    See Tress v. Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 126, ¶ 5
(2008). Accordingly, the appellant’s assertion in this regard is unavailing.
         In her petition for review, the appellant appears to allege that the agency
should pay her an additional $57,000 because she is ineligible for social security
benefits until next year. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1-2. To this end, she suggests that
she was unaware of her ineligibility for benefits until after she executed the
settlement agreement.      Id. However, the appellant’s allegations in this regard
relate to information of which she was aware, or could have been aware, at the
time she entered into the agreement; her apparent misunderstanding does not
constitute good cause for her delay. See Ford v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
99 M.S.P.R. 338, ¶ 7 (2005) (explaining that the appellant’s claimed
misunderstanding of, or dissatisfaction with, the terms of a settlement agreement
did not constitute good cause for her filing delay).
         In a similar vein, the appellant also suggests that, at some point, the agency
offered her $20,000 instead of $2,000. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2. To the extent she
contends that the agency fraudulently induced her to sign the settlement
agreement based on this alleged offer, we note that the executed settlement
agreement clearly states that the appellant would receive a lump sum of
“two-thousand dollars ($2,000.00).” IAF, Tab 13 at 4. Additionally, she appears
to concede in her petition for review that the parties’ signed agreement did, in
fact, state $2,000. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2. This argument appears to be based on
information previously available to the appellant such that she could have timely
filed a petition for review on this basis.         See Wilson v. General Services
                                                                                      5

Administration, 15 M.S.P.R. 45, 47 (1983) (finding that the appellant had not
shown good cause for his untimeliness because, among other things, he failed to
show that the “new” information on which he relied was unavailable, despite due
diligence, before the record closed).
      The appellant further contends that, during the pendency of her initial
appeal, agency counsel intimidated her. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1. However, as she
provides no explanation as to why she could not have timely raised such
allegations against counsel, the appellant again fails to show good cause for her
delay in filing. See Wilson, 15 M.S.P.R. at 47. The appellant has not alleged,
and we do not discern, any alternate basis for finding good cause for her untimely
filed petition for review. PFR File, Tabs 1, 3, 5.
      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 dismissal of her removal appeal as settled.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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

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.
                                                                                        6

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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
                                                                                  7

      (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 .
      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. 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).

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.
                                                                                  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.