Court Opinion

ID: 9377937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 07:00:12.009955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.018327
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ESTATE OF MARY A. ALLRED,                       DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         SF-1221-18-0462-X-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: March 8, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Timothy A. Bridge, Wellston, Michigan, for the appellant.

           La’Chelle M. Woodert, Esquire, Loma Linda, California, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         This compliance proceeding was initiated by the appellant’s April 30, 2019
     petition for enforcement of the Board’s February 11, 2019 Order in Estate 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential o rders,
     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 B oard
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
     2
       Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
     completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                           2

     Mary A. Allred v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-
     18-0462-W-2, in which the administrative judge accepted the parties’ settlement
     agreement into the record for enforcement purposes.           On June 17, 2019, the
     administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision finding the agency not
     in compliance with the settlement agreement.           Estate of Mary A. Allred v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-18-0462-C-1,
     Compliance File (CF), Tab 8, Compliance Initial Decision (CID). For the reasons
     discussed below, we find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the petition for
     enforcement.

         DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2         On April 18, 2018, the appellant filed an individual right of action appeal
     alleging that the agency retaliated against her for opposing unlawful promotion
     practices by agency managers. 3       Estate of Mary A. Allred v. Department of
     Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-18-0462-W-1, Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 1 at 2. On November 1, 2018, the administrative judge dismissed the
     appellant’s appeal without prejudice. IAF, Tab 34, Initial Decision at 1-2. On
     January 29, 2019, the appellant’s appeal was refiled under MSPB Docket
     No. SF-1221-18-0462-W-2, effective January 2, 2019. 4 Estate of Mary A. Allred
     v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-18-0462-W-2,
     Refiled Appeal File (RAF), Tab 3 at 1. On February 11, 2019, the administrative
     judge, pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, issued an initial
     decision that dismissed the appeal as settled and accepted the settlement

     3
      The Estate of Mary A. Allred was substituted as the proper appellant in this litigation
     on January 29, 2019, due to the December 13, 2018 death of the appellant. Estate of
     Mary A. Allred v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-18-0462-
     W-2, Refiled Appeal File (RAF), Tab 3 at 1-2.
     4
       The delay between the effective date and reopening date was due to the lapse in
     appropriations for the Board between December 22, 2018, and January 25, 2019 . RAF,
     Tab 3 at 1.
                                                                                          3

     agreement into the record for enforcement purposes. 5          RAF, Tab 7, Initial
     Decision (ID). The initial decision became the final decision of the Board on
     March 18, 2019, after neither party petitioned for administrative review. ID at 3.
¶3        On April 30, 2019, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement of the
     settlement agreement, alleging that the agency had not yet paid it the sum of
     $50,000.00 as called for in the agreement. CF, Tab 1. On June 17, 2019, the
     administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision finding the agency not
     in compliance based on its failure to pay the appellant the $50,000.00 by the date
     of the decision. CID at 6.
¶4        After neither party petitioned for review of this finding, the case was
     referred to the Board for a final decision on the issues of compliance, p ursuant to
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(b)-(c). Estate of Mary A. Allred v. Department of Veterans
     Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-18-0462-X-1, Compliance Referral File
     (CRF), Tab 1.
                                         ANALYSIS
¶5        The Board has authority to enforce a settlement agreement that has been
     entered into the record for enforcement purposes in the same manner as any final
     Board decision or order.     Vance v. Department of the Interior, 114 M.S.P.R.
     679, ¶ 6 (2010).    A settlement agreement is a contract, and the Board will
     therefore adjudicate a petition to enforce a settlement agreement in accordance
     with contract law. Allen v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 659,
     ¶ 7 (2009), aff’d, 420 F. App’x 980 (Fed. Cir. 2011). When, as here, an appellant
     alleges noncompliance with a settlement agreement, the agency must produce
     relevant, material, and credible evidence of its compliance with the agreement.
     Vance, 114 M.S.P.R. 679, ¶ 6. The ultimate burden, however, remains with the

     5
      The appellant also agreed as part of the settlement agreement to withdraw her pending
     petition for review in a separate appeal, Estate of Mary A. Allred v. Department of
     Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-17-0621-W-1. RAF, Tab 6. That request
     was addressed in a separate nonprecedential order under that docket number.
                                                                                            4

     appellant, as the party seeking enforcement, to prove breach by a preponderance
     of the evidence. Id.
¶6           The agency’s outstanding compliance issue was its obligation to pay the
     appellant the sum of $50,000.00. On July 26, 2019, the appellant informed the
     Board that the agency paid it the full amount owed on July 10, 2019, and as a
     result requested that the Board dismiss its petition for enforcement. CRF, Tab 2
     at 4.
¶7           Accordingly, in light of the appellant’s submission, the Board finds the
     agency in compliance and dismisses the petition for enforcement. This is the
     final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this co mpliance
     proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.183(c)(1)
     (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

                      NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                            YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                           ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
             You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
     fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of
     the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
     regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
     you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
     and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
     You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
     the initial decision on your appeal.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
             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

     6
       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 i ndicated in the notice, the
     Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                       5

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 bel ow 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 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.
                                                                                    6

      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. ____ , 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 secur ity. 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
                                                                                 7

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 deliver y 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    Protectio n
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. 7 The court of appeals must receive your

7
  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
                                                                                      8

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.
                                                                        9

      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.