Court Opinion

ID: 9405361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 06:00:16.869987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.564659
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DENISE SAUNDERS,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-3443-17-0289-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,                     DATE: June 27, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Denise Saunders, Lawrenceville, Georgia, pro se.

           Andrew M. Greene, Atlanta, Georgia, 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 appeal alleging a reduction in grade or pay 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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
     clarify and augment the analysis of the jurisdictional issue, we AFFIRM the
     initial decision.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         In 2012, the appellant received a temporary promotion from her
     permanently assigned position as a Lead Tax Examining Technician, GS-8,
     step 7, with an adjusted basic salary of $53,865, to a Supervisory Tax Examining
     Assistant position, Internal Revenue Service (IR) Payband level 8, with an
     adjusted basic salary of $58,174.     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 8.     The
     agency extended her temporary promotion several times and gave her several
     performance-based salary increases (PBIs), resulting in an adjusted basic salary
     of $63,454 as of January 11, 2015. Id. at 9-14. On December 27, 2015, she
     received another temporary promotion, i.e., a “stacked promotion,” to a
     Department Manager position in the IR Payband with an adjusted basic salary of
     $68,530. 2 Id. at 15. On January 10, 2016, while the appellant was still on her

     2
        According to the agency’s IRS Payband System Pay Administrative Guidance
     (IR Guidance), a “stacked promotion occurs when an employee already on a temporary
     promotion is placed, without a break in service, on a second temporary promotion to a
     position with a higher maximum rate than the first temporary promotion, prior to the
     not-to-exceed (NTE) date of the first temporary promotion.” IAF, Tab 6 at 20, 29.
                                                                                           3

     stacked promotion, the agency awarded her a 7.7% PBI, which increased her
     adjusted basic pay to $73,985.      Id. at 16. On April 17, 2016, the appellant’s
     stacked temporary promotion ended, and the agency administratively returned her
     to her permanently assigned position as a Lead Tax Examining Technician , GS-8,
     step 8, with an adjusted basic pay of $57,177, before immediately placing her on
     another temporary promotion to the position of Supervisory Tax Examining
     Assistant, IR-08, with an adjusted basic pay of $63,608. 3          Id. at 17-19.   On
     August 7, 2016, the agency permanently promoted her to the position of
     Supervisory Tax Examining Assistant, IR-08. Id. at 46.
¶3         In February 2017, the appellant appealed an alleged reduction in pay or
     grade to the Board, alleging that she suffered a loss of $6,000 in annual salary
     due to a “pay setting error” when, upon the termination of her stacked temporary
     promotion to a Department Manager position, the agency set her pay without
     properly accounting for the 7.7% PBI she received while serving as Department
     Manager. 4 IAF, Tab 1 at 3, 5. In an acknowledgment order, the administrative
     judge notified the appellant that the Board may not have jurisdiction over her
     appeal of a pay-setting error and ordered her to file evidence and argument
     amounting to a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 2. In response,
     the appellant explained that, upon further research, she realized that the $6,000
     loss in salary she was appealing was not due to a pay-setting error, but occurred
     because of agency rules governing pay setting upon the termination of stacked
     promotions. IAF, Tab 8 at 4. She argued that the agency was negligent in failing

     3
       The IR Guidance provides that an employee on a stacked promotion who is being
     returned to a temporary promotion that she previously held in a series of temporary
     promotions is first returned to her permanent position of record and then promoted to
     the temporary promotion position. Id. at 29-30.
     4
       It appears that the appellant’s February 2017 appeal of the agency’s April 2016 action
     may be untimely filed. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b). In light of our finding that the
     Board does not have jurisdiction over this appeal, however, we need not reach the
     timeliness issue. See Alston v. Social Security Administration, 95 M.S.P.R. 252, ¶ 29
     (2003), aff’d, 134 F. App’x 440 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
                                                                                        4

     to inform her that she could lose money by taking the temporary promotion, that
     she did not agree to such terms, and that the agency’s action was unfair . Id.
     at 4-5. She further asserted that the agency has since changed its policy. Id. at 5.
     The agency moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the
     appellant did not suffer an appealable reduction in pay. IAF, Tabs 3, 6, 9.
¶4         Without holding the appellant’s requested hearing, the administrative judge
     dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID).
     The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, and the agency
     has responded in opposition. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         The Board does not have jurisdiction over all matters involving Federal
     employees that are alleged to be unfair or incorrect; rather, it is limited to those
     matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation.
     Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985);
     Johnson v. U.S. Postal Service, 67 M.S.P.R. 573, 577 (1995). Under chapter 75
     of Title 5, the Board has jurisdiction to review specified adverse action s taken
     against covered employees, including reductions in grade or pay. See 5 U.S.C.
     § 7512(3)-(4). If the employee makes a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction,
     i.e., an allegation that, if proven, could establish the Board’s jurisdiction, she is
     entitled to a hearing at which she must prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of
     the evidence. 5 Garcia v. Department of Homeland Security, 437 F.3d 1322, 1344
     (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc).
¶6         As noted above, the appellant alleged that the agency unfai rly set her pay
     upon the termination of her temporary promotion by failing to properly credit her
     with the 7.7% PBI she received while serving on a stacked temporary detail as a

     5
      A preponderance of the evidence is the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable
     person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficie nt to find that a
     contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q).
                                                                                         5

     Department Manager, which caused a $6,000 loss in annual salary. IAF, Tabs 1,
     8.   In the initial decision, the administrative judge found that the appellant’s
     dispute with the method used by the agency to calculate her pay following the
     termination of her stacked promotion did not constitute an appealable reduction in
     pay under 5 U.S.C. § 7512(4). ID at 3. On review, the appellant argues again
     that the agency failed to inform her that taking the temporary detail would harm
     her financially, she is entitled to the 7.7% PBI that she earned while she was on
     the Department Manager detail, the agency made mistakes in processing the
     paperwork, and the agency’s action is unfair. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3 -5.
¶7         In the context of a reduction in pay under chapter 75, “pay” means “the rate
     of basic pay fixed by law or administrative action for the position held by an
     employee.” 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(4). The right to appeal a reduction in pay has
     been narrowly construed and requires that the appellant show a demonstrable loss,
     such as an actual reduction in pay, to establish jurisdiction.        See Chaney v.
     Veterans Administration, 906 F.2d 697, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (stating that an
     appealable reduction in pay occurs only when there is an “ascertainable lowering”
     of an employee’s pay at the time of the action). “Grade” in this context means “a
     level of classification under a position classification system.”             5 U.S.C.
     § 7511(a)(3). Here, the appellant has not alleged, and the record does not show,
     that the agency reduced her rate of pay or grade in her permanently assigned
     position following her temporary promotions. 6 IAF, Tabs 1, 8; PFR File, Tab 1.
     Absent any loss in grade or actual reduction in pay, the Board lacks jurisdiction

     6
       As noted above, prior to her temporary promotions, the agency employed the appellant
     as a Lead Tax Examining Technician, GS-8, step 7, with an adjusted basic salary of
     $53,865. IAF, Tab 6 at 8. Upon the termination of her stacked promotion on April 17,
     2016, the agency administratively returned her to her permanently assigned position as
     a Lead Tax Examining Technician, GS-8, step 8, with an adjusted basic pay of $57,177,
     which included the within-grade increase for which she became eligible on July 12,
     2015, and the 1% General Schedule increase that became effective in January 2016. Id.
     at 17-18.
                                                                                      6

     over the appellant’s challenge to her salary following the termination of her
     temporary promotions. See 5 U.S.C. § 7512(3)-(4).
¶8         In addition, the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider an “[a]ction that
     terminates a temporary or term promotion and returns the employee to the
     position from which temporarily promoted, or to a different position of equivalent
     grade and pay, if the agency informed the employee that it was to be of limited
     duration.” 5 C.F.R. § 752.401(b)(12); see 5 C.F.R. § 335.102(f) (stating that an
     agency may make time-limited promotions but must give the employee advance
     written notice of the conditions of the temporary promotion, including, among
     other things, that she may be returned to her former position at any time and that
     such return may not be appealed to the Board under chapter 75). Here, the record
     reflects that, following the termination of the appellant’s stacked promotion, the
     agency administratively returned her to her permanently assigned position at the
     same grade level she previously held without any loss in pay. IAF, Tab 6 at 8,
     17.   While the appellant alleges that the agency failed to inform her of the
     financial effect of the temporary promotions, she does not allege that the agency
     failed to inform her that her promotions were time limited , and the Standard
     Form 50s documenting her temporary promotions clearly indicate that they were
     temporary.   Id. at 8, 10, 12, 14-15.   Therefore, we find that the Board lacks
     jurisdiction to consider the agency’s action returning the appellant to her
     permanently assigned position at the same grade level previously held following
     the termination of her stacked promotion.           See 5 C.F.R. §§ 335.102(f),
     752.401(b)(12).
¶9         Lastly, because the Board lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, it cannot
     consider the appellant’s claims that she was harmed by the agency’s handling of
     her temporary promotions. See Daneshpayeh v. Department of the Air Force,
     57 M.S.P.R. 672, 682 n.9 (1993) (stating that the Board lacks jurisdiction over
     allegations of harmful error absent an otherwise appealable action), aff’d, 17 F.3d
     1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Table).
                                                                                      7

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7
      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 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).

7
  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

      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 att orney 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
                                                                                  9

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:
                            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
                                                                                     10

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. 8 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

8
   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.
                                                                           11

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.