Court Opinion

ID: 9373389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:38.598974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.212319
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SCHWANDA G. HAMMOND,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  DA-3330-18-0237-C-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: September 23, 2022
                         Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Schwanda G. Hammond, Fort Worth, Texas, pro se.

           Susan L. Lovell, Esquire, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                        FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has petitioned for review of the October 1, 2019 complianc e
     initial decision in this appeal.     Compliance File, Tab 6, Compliance Initial

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     Decision; Compliance Petition for Review (CPFR) File, Tab 1. For the reasons
     set forth below, we DISMISS this compliance appeal as settled.
¶2        After the filing of the compliance petition for review, the parties submitted
     a document entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by the
     appellant on March 11, 2020, and by the agency on March 12, 2020. CPFR File,
     Tab 11. The document provides, among other things, that the appellan t agreed to
     withdraw with prejudice all pending causes of action against the agency. Id. at 8.
¶3        Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the
     parties have entered into a settlement agreement, whether they understand its
     terms, and whether they intend to have the agreement entered into the record for
     enforcement by the Board.     See Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R.
     146, 149 (1988). In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the
     record for enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the
     agreement is lawful on its face and whether the parties freely entered into it . See
     Massey v. Office of Personnel Management, 91 M.S.P.R. 289, ¶ 4 (2002),
     overruled on other grounds by Delorme v. Department of the Interior,
     124 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶¶ 11-21 (2017) (holding that the Board may enforce
     settlement agreements that have been entered into t he record, independent of any
     prior finding of Board jurisdiction over the underlying matter being settled).
¶4        Here, we find that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and
     understand its terms but, for the following reasons, that they did not intend the
     settlement agreement to be entered into the record for enforcement by the Board
     in this appeal.
¶5        The settlement agreement provides that the parties agreed it would be
     entered into the record for enforcement in another Board appeal, MSPB Docket
     No. DA-0752-20-0103-I-1. 2 CPFR File, Tab 11 at 11. However, in response to

     2
       In a March 19, 2020 initial decision in the appeal specified in the settlement
     agreement, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-20-0103-I-1, the administrative judge entered
     the March 2020 settlement agreement into the reco rd for enforcement by the Board.
                                                                                     3

an e-Appeal Online prompt when submitting the settlement agreement in this
appeal, the agency indicated that the parties agreed that the settlement agreement
would be entered into the record for enforcement. Id. at 3. Given the conflicting
statements, the Board informed the parties that, if they wanted the settlement
agreement to be entered into the record for enforcement in this appeal, they must
submit a properly executed amendment to that effect.             CPFR File, Tab 12.
Although the parties responded to the Board’s order, 3 they did not submit an
amendment or otherwise address their intent regarding enforcement. CPFR File,
Tabs 13-15.    Therefore, pursuant to the unambiguous term of the settlement
agreement, we find that the parties intended the settlement agreement to be
entered into the record for enforcement in MSPB Docket No. DA -0752-20-0103-
I-1, but not in this appeal. See Greco v. Department of the Army, 852 F.2d 558,
560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (in construing the terms of a written settlement agreement,
the words of the agreement itself are of paramount importance in determining the
intent of the parties at the time they contracted). As the parties do not intend for

Hammond v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-20-0103-I-1, Initial
Appeal File, Tab 33, Initial Decision. On August 12, 2020, the appellant petitioned for
enforcement of the settlement agreement in that appeal. Hammond v. Department of
Defense, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-20-0103-C-1, Compliance File (0103 CF), Tab 1.
In an October 7, 2020 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge found that
the appellant failed to show that the agency breached the settlement agreement and
denied her petition for enforcement. 0103 CF, Tab 16, Compliance Initial Decision.
On November 11, 2020, the appellant petitioned for review of the compliance initial
decision. Hammond v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-20-0103-
C-1, Compliance Petition for Review File, Tab 1. The appellant’s petition for review of
the compliance initial decision remains pending before the Board.
3
  On September 21, 2021, the appellant submitted a copy of a December 11, 2020
motion she had filed in MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-20-0103-C-1 regarding agency
noncompliance with the March 2020 settlement agreement. CPFR File, Tab 13. The
agency moved to dismiss the appeal as settled pursuant to the March 2020 settlement
agreement and resubmitted a copy of the agreement. CPFR File, Tabs 14-15. To the
extent the appellant’s resubmission of her December 11, 2020 motion is an attempt to
challenge in this appeal the agency’s compliance with the March 2020 settlement
agreement, it is not properly before the Board, and we therefore need not address it.
                                                                                           4

     the Board to enforce the settlement agreement in this appeal, we need not address
     the additional considerations regarding enforcement, and we do not enter the
     settlement agreement into the record for enforcement by the Board.
¶6         In light of the foregoing, we find that dismissing the above-captioned
     compliance appeal “with prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not
     refile this appeal) is appropriate under these circumstances.
¶7         This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this
     appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113).

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
           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.

     4
       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.
                                                                                         5

      (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.

      (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
                                                                                  6

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
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:
                                                                                      7

                            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 descri bed 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. 5   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

5
   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.
                                                                                8

      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:                            /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.