Court Opinion

ID: 9398765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 07:00:24.187579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.089743
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SUSAN ELIZABETH DELMERICO,                      DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-3443-17-0281-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,                         DATE: May 30, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Susan Elizabeth Delmerico, Jacksonville, Florida, pro se.

           Thomas J. Tangi, Jacksonville, Florida, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her nonselection appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 by this Final Order to supplement the administrative
     judge’s analysis to explain why the Board lacks jurisdiction over this appeal
     based on regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concerning
     suitability actions and employment practices, we AFFIRM the initial decision.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         On October 17, 2016, the agency posted a vacancy announcement for the
     position of Health System Specialist, GS-0671-09.        Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 5 at 8-12. The vacancy announcement noted that the position would be filled
     using the agency’s expedited hiring authority for designated healthcare
     professions. Id. at 8. Approximately 68 applicants were certified as qualified for
     the position, including the appellant. Id. at 14-16. The candidate selected for the
     position was purportedly a veteran with a compensable, service-connected
     disability of 30% or more.     Id. at 14, 22, 34. The appellant does not have a
     veterans’ preference. IAF, Tab 1 at 1, Tab 5 at 15.
¶3         Following her nonselection, the appellant filed this appeal with the Board.
     IAF, Tab 1. Among other things, she alleged that she was denied an interview or
     consideration for the position and that the agency wrongfully accounted for the
     candidates’ veterans’ preference in filling the vacancy. Id. at 5.
                                                                                                3

¶4         Without holding the appellant’s requested hearing, the administrative jud ge
     dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to make
     a nonfrivolous allegation 2 of any matter appealable to the Board. IAF, Tab 6,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 1-3. The administrative judge explained that nonselection
     decisions are generally not actions that can be appealed to the Board. ID at 2 -3.
     She further found that the appellant’s allegations of procedural error in the
     selection process were not a source of jurisdiction and that the appellant failed to
     make a nonfrivolous allegation under OPM’s employment practices regulations
     because any employment practice at issue was not administered by OPM. ID at 3.
     The appellant has filed a petition for review, the agency has filed a response, and
     the appellant has filed a reply. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3-4.

                       DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         Generally, a nonselection is not the type of action that can be directly
     appealed to the Board.           Pridgen v. Office of Management and Budget,
     117 M.S.P.R. 665, ¶ 6 (2012); see 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512, 7513(d). However, as the
     administrative judge correctly informed the appellant, there are exceptions to this
     general rule. IAF, Tab 2 at 2-5. One exception is when an employment practice
     that was applied to an employee by OPM violates a basic requirement set forth at
     5 C.F.R. § 300.103. 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a). Further, OPM’s regulations provide
     that a suitability action, as defined at 5 C.F.R. § 731.203, may also be appealed to
     the Board pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 731.501(a). 3

     2
       A nonfrivolous allegation is an assertion that, if proven, could establish the matter at
     issue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(s). An allegation generally will be considered nonfrivolous
     when, under oath or penalty of perjury, an individual makes an allegation that is more
     than conclusory, is plausible on its face, and is material to the legal issues in the appeal.
     Id.
     3
       The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-92,
     § 1086(f)(9), 129 Stat. 726, 1010 (2015), amended 5 U.S.C. § 7512 to state that
     chapter 75 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code “does not apply to . . . a suitability action taken
     by [OPM] under regulations prescribed by [OPM], subject to the rules pres cribed by the
     President under [Title 5] for the administration of the competitive service. ” 5 U.S.C.
                                                                                             4

¶6         The appellant argues on review that the agency’s expedited hiring authority
     requires it to apply merit principles to assist in determining the best qualified
     candidate and that the agency failed in this regard. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5 -6. She
     seems to contend that, if the agency had appropriately screened its candidates,
     several of its interviewees would never have been interviewed for the position.
     Id. at 6-7. She states that the hiring manager told her that she was the most
     qualified candidate for the position and that he further said that the human
     resources office instructed that only veterans were to be interviewed for the
     position, despite the certification of a number of nonveterans.             IAF, Tab 4
     at 9-10; PFR File, Tab 1 at 7. The appellant argues that the agency’s decision to
     interview only veterans constituted a cancellation of every nonveteran’s
     eligibility for employment consideration, which she asserts is a suitability action.
     PFR File, Tab 4 at 4. She also alleges that the agency’s actions violated the ba sic
     requirements set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 300.103. Id.

     The appellant has failed to nonfrivolously allege that OPM’s suitability
     regulations are a source of jurisdiction.
¶7         Regulations promulgated by OPM in 2008 state that a “suitability action,”
     as defined in those regulations, may be appealed to the Board.                  5 C.F.R.
     § 731.501(a). Suitability determinations examine whether “a person’s character
     or conduct . . . may have an impact on the integrity or efficiency of the service.”
     5 C.F.R. § 731.101. If an individual is deemed unsuitable for service based on
     one or more of the factors enumerated in 5 C.F.R. § 731.202(b), the acting agency
     may take a suitability action, which is defined as a removal, debarment,
     cancellation of eligibility, or cancellation of reinstatement eligibility. 5 C.F.R.
     § 731.203.    However, “[a] non-selection, or cancellation of eligibility for a

     § 7512(F). Given our finding that the appellant’s nonselection was not a suitability
     action, we do not consider the effect, if any, of section 7512(F) on this appeal, an issue
     that has not been addressed by either party.
                                                                                          5

     specific position . . . is not a suitability action even if it is based on reasons set
     forth in § 731.202.” 5 C.F.R. § 731.203(b).
¶8           Assuming arguendo that the agency directed that only veterans be
     interviewed for the position at issue in this case, we find that this does not
     constitute a “cancellation of eligibility,” as that term is used at 5 C.F.R.
     § 731.203(a), or any other suitability action. Moreover, even if it did constitute a
     cancellation of eligibility, it would only have been a cancellation of eligibility for
     a specific position, which is excluded from the definition of a suitability action.
     5 C.F.R. § 731.203(b).       Accordingly, we find that the appellant failed to
     nonfrivolously allege that the agency took a suitability action against her.
     Therefore, we conclude that 5 C.F.R. § 731.501(a) is not a source of jurisdiction
     here.

     The appellant has failed to nonfrivolously allege that her claim concerns an
     employment practice that OPM was involved in administering.
¶9           The Board has jurisdiction over an employment practices appeal when
     (1) an appellant’s claim concerns an “employment practice” that OPM is involved
     in administering and (2) she has nonfrivolously alleged that the employment
     practice violated one of the “basic requirements” set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103.
     Burroughs v. Department of the Army, 116 M.S.P.R. 292, ¶ 15 (2011).                An
     “employment practice” is defined, in relevant part, as those practices “that affect
     the recruitment, measurement, ranking, and selection of individuals for initial
     appointment and competitive promotion in the competitive service,” and includes
     “the development and use of examinations, qualification standards, tests, and
     other measurement instruments.” 5 C.F.R. § 300.101. However, an individual
     agency action or decision that is not a rule or practice of some kind does not
     qualify as an employment practice, but an agency’s misapplication of a valid
     OPM requirement may constitute an employment practice. Sauser v. Department
     of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 403, ¶ 7 (2010).
                                                                                         6

¶10        The administrative judge found that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously
      allege that any employment practice at issue in this appeal was administered by
      OPM. 4 ID at 3. On review, the appellant has failed to explain why we should
      reverse this finding, PFR File, Tabs 1, 4, and we see no reason to do so.
      Accordingly, assuming without finding that the appellant has nonfrivolously
      alleged that her claim concerns employment practices, we find that she has failed
      to nonfrivolously allege that OPM was involved in administering such
      employment practices. IAF, Tab 4 at 7, 9-10; PFR File, Tab 1 at 7; see Prewitt v.
      Merit Systems Protection Board, 133 F.3d 885, 888 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding that
      the appellant failed to allege that OPM was involved in the establishment of
      allegedly improper minimum qualifications for the position to which he applied).
¶11        The appellant claims that the agency erred in its application of its rules
      regarding the pass-over of individuals with a veterans’ preference.     PFR File,
      Tab 1 at 7-8, Tab 4 at 10.      The pass-over provisions set forth at 5 U.S.C.
      § 3318(c) have been found to constitute an employment practice applied by OPM.
      Lackhouse v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 734 F.2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir.
      1984). However, because the agency used a direct-hiring authority pursuant to
      10 U.S.C. § 1599c and 5 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(3), section 3318 was not directly
      applicable to the agency, and the agency instead only had to apply the
      “principles” of certain preferences for the hiring of veterans, such as the
      pass-over provisions set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 3318(c). IAF, Tab 5 at 8, 20, 30-31.
      Further, unlike subsection 3318(c), the agency’s pass-over procedures do not
      involve OPM.     IAF, Tab 5 at 22.      Thus, the appellant’s arguments do not
      constitute a nonfrivolous allegation that OPM was involved in administering any
      employment practice at issue in this appeal.

      4
        Alleged violations involving employment practices administered or required by an
      agency, rather than OPM, are actionable through the agency’s grievance process.
      5 C.F.R. § 300.104(c).
                                                                                            7

      The appellant’s      remaining   arguments     do   not   change    the   jurisdictional
      determination.
¶12           The appellant also refers to one statement made by the agency’s
      representative as an admission by the agency that it violated the merit system
      principles, and she refers to another statement as an admission by the agency that
      it is not standard for it to use acceptable employment practices. PFR File, Tab 1
      at 5.     The agency asserts that the first purported admission was merely a
      typographical error on its part. PFR File, Tab 3 at 6; IAF, Tab 5 at 5. In the
      context of all the agency’s submissions in this appeal, we agree that this is an
      immaterial typographical error.        Regarding the other purported admission,
      concerning the agency’s use of acceptable employment practices, we find that the
      appellant has misconstrued the pleading and the agency’s representative did not
      make the admission alleged by the appellant. IAF, Tab 5 at 6.
¶13           Finally, the appellant asserts that she was denied discovery in her appeal.
      PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-8.       However, we find that the appellant has failed to
      demonstrate how the absence of discovery prejudiced her ability to make a
      nonfrivolous allegation on the dispositive jurisdictional issue.          See Vores v.
      Department of the Army, 109 M.S.P.R. 191, ¶ 14 (2008), aff’d, 324 F. App’x 883
      (Fed. Cir. 2009); Sommers v. Department of Agriculture, 62 M.S.P.R. 519, 523
      (1994); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115.      Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision and
      dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
              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

      5
        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.
                                                                                        8

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
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 partic ular
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.
                                                                                   9

      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.
      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
                                                                                10

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 competent jurisdiction. 6 The court of appeals must receive your

6
  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
                                                                                     11

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.

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.
                                                                       12

      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.