Court Opinion

ID: 9373561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:52.034472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.792982
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SHAVON CONYERS,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-315H-17-0307-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,                         DATE: July 21, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Pamela F. Mucklow, Esquire, Englewood, Colorado, for the appellant.

           Tyree P. Ayers, Esquire, Washington, D.C., 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 appeal as untimely filed. 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

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 id entified 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 af fected 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 c onclude 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 and AFFIRM the initial
     decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The agency appointed the appellant to a GG-11 Program Analyst position
     with the Census Bureau Field Division.         Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 12
     at 13-15.   On January 4, 2017, the agency terminated the appellant from her
     excepted-service position because she incorrectly listed on her résumé a degree
     that she had not obtained. IAF, Tab 1, Attachment. The notice informed the
     appellant that she had a right to appeal her ter mination to the Board within
     30 days of the date that she received the termination notice, a period that ended
     on February 3, 2017. Id. She filed a Board appeal on February 7, 2017, four days
     after the filing deadline. IAF, Tab 1.
¶3         The administrative judge issued an order informing the appellant of her
     burden to show that her appeal was timely filed or that good caus e existed for the
     delay in filing. IAF, Tab 8. Based on the parties’ responses to that order, IAF,
     Tabs 13, 16, the administrative judge issued an initial decision finding that the
     appellant’s discussions with the agency regarding her possible reinstatement
     ended on the afternoon of February 3, 2017, IAF, Tab 17, Initial Decision (ID)
     at 7. The administrative judge determined that, because February 3, 2017, was
                                                                                        3

     the filing deadline, the appellant, who is an electronic filer, could have filed her
     appeal before midnight of the due date, but instead , she waited an additional
     4 days to file. Id. The administrative judge found that the appellant failed to
     show that she exercised ordinary prudence or due diligence under the
     circumstances, and therefore, she dismissed the appeal as untimely filed.         ID
     at 7-8.
¶4         In her petition for review, the appellant asserts, among other things, that she
     filed late because she reasonably relied on agency misstatements that she would
     be reinstated, and the administrative judge erred in disregarding case law
     concerning the effect of such misstatements.       Petition for Review (PFR) Fil e,
     Tab 1 at 10-21. She also contends that the filing delay was minimal , that her
     termination was actually a suitability action, and that the administrative judge
     erred in disregarding evidence that the agency’s failure to comply with 5 C.F.R.
     § 731.402 caused her delay in filing. Id. at 10, 21-22. The agency responded in
     opposition to the petition. PFR File, Tab 5.

                                         ANALYSIS
¶5         If an appellant fails to timely file her appeal, it will be dismissed as
     untimely absent a showing of good cause for the delay in filing.            5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.22(c). To establish good cause for the untimely filing of an appeal, an
     appellant must show that she exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under
     the particular circumstances of the case.      Marcantel v. Department of Energy,
     121 M.S.P.R. 330, ¶ 10 (2014). To determine if an appellant has shown good
     cause, the Board will consider the length of the delay, the reasonableness of the
     excuse and her showing of diligence, whether she 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 unfavora ble
     casualty or misfortune that similarly shows a causal relationship to her inability
     to timely file her claim. Little v. U.S. Postal Service, 124 M.S.P.R. 183, ¶ 10
                                                                                      4

     (2017). Beyond the appellant’s assertion that the appeal was filed late because
     she relied on agency misstatements, she has not offered any evidence or argument
     regarding any additional circumstances that affected her ability to timely file her
     appeal.
¶6        In support of her assertion that the agency caused her delay in filing, the
     appellant provided a declaration made under penalty of perjury recounting various
     conversations related to her termination and possible reinstatement. IAF, Tab 13
     at 10-14. In her declaration, however, the appellant does not identify an instance
     after January 4, 2017—the date of the termination notice—in which an agency
     manager directly led her to believe that her termination would be rescinded. Id.
     Any suggestion that the appellant might have been reinstated came through the
     appellant’s union representative, and there is no evidence that he was authorized
     to make a decision on the appellant’s reinstatement. Under the circumstances, we
     find that the appellant failed to show that any agency official made misstatements
     that caused her to lose time in filing her appeal. Likewise, we find that the cases
     cited by the appellant in her petition for review do not support a finding that
     agency misrepresentation caused the appellant’s filing delay. See Shubinsky v.
     United States, 488 F.2d 1003 (Ct. Cl. 1973); Gordy v. Merit Systems Protection
     Board, 736 F.2d 1505 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Gometz v. Department of the Navy,
     69 M.S.P.R. 284 (1996), overruled on other grounds by Sturdy v. Department of
     the Army, 88 M.S.P.R. 502 (2001).            Both Shubinsky and Gometz are
     distinguishable because, unlike here, there was a finding in those cases that the
     employees actually received inaccurate information from agency officials. And ,
     Gordy is distinguishable from the instant case because, unlike the employee in
     Gordy, the appellant here was fully aware of the basis for the claim on which she
     could file a Board appeal before the filing deadline had passed.
¶7        Regarding the appellant’s claim that the 4-day filing delay was minimal, in
     the absence of a showing of good cause, the Board has dismissed appeals as
     untimely filed when the filing delay was minimal. Melendez v. Department of
                                                                                           5

     Homeland Security, 112 M.S.P.R. 51, ¶ 16 (2009) (holding that, despite a 3-day
     delay, the Board would waive its filing time limit only upon a showing of good
     cause); White v. Department of Justice, 103 M.S.P.R. 312, ¶ 10 (2006)
     (addressing a 5-day filing delay and finding that the Board has consistently
     denied a waiver of the filing deadline if a good reason for the delay is not shown,
     even when the delay is minimal), aff’d, 230 F. App’x 976 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
¶8         The appellant’s assertion that the agency caused her untimely filing by not
     complying with the proper procedures for a suitability determination at 5 C.F.R.
     §§ 731.402-.404 is also unavailing. Employees in the excepted service, like the
     appellant, are not covered by the suitability regulations identified by the
     appellant. 5 C.F.R. § 731.101.
¶9         In sum, we agree with the administrative judge ’s finding that the appellant’s
     appeal was untimely filed and that she failed to show good cause for the filing
     delay.

                              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. ____ , 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
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 For ms 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.