Court Opinion

ID: 9392508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 07:00:11.674666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.183813
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     LAURA WILSON,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  CB-7121-22-0006-V-1

                  v.

     SOCIAL SECURITY                                 DATE: May 4, 2023
       ADMINISTRATION,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Laura Wilson, Sun City, Arizona, pro se.

           Sundeep R. Patel, San Francisco, California, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a request for review of an arbitrator’s decision that
     denied her grievance of her removal.         For the reasons set forth below, the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     appellant’s request for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good
     cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.155(b).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant was formerly employed as a Claims Specialist with the
     agency. Request for Review (RFR) File, Tab 1 at 1. On January 10, 2022, she
     filed an appeal challenging an arbitration decision with the Board’s Denver Field
     Office, and it was forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of the Board for docketing
     as a request for review of an arbitrator’s decision. RFR File, Tab 2 at 1. The
     appellant’s request included a copy of the Board’s standard appeal form, a
     removal proposal letter, a copy of a December 7, 2021 order from a Magistrate
     Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona , and other documents
     seemingly related to her grievance. RFR File, Tab 1. In her initial request for
     review, the appellant asserted that the agency “mislead [her] in the next steps
     after Arbitration as [she] was notified on 12/7/2021 by the Judge in the U.S.
     District Court of Appeals in Arizona that [she] needed to file MSPB on the
     Arbitrator[’]s decision.”   Id. at 5.   Further, the December 7, 2021 Magistrate
     Judge’s order identified that the arbitrator issued a decision denying the
     appellant’s grievance on June 4, 2020.      Id. at 108.   However, the appellant’s
     submission did not include a copy of the arbitrator’s decision.
¶3        The Office of the Clerk of the Board issued an acknowledgment order that
     set forth the jurisdictional and timeliness requirements that the appellant must
     meet to obtain review of the arbitration decision. RFR File, Tab 2 at 2-3. It
     ordered the appellant to file evidence and argument to prove that the Board has
     jurisdiction over the request for review and that the request for review was timely
     and/or there existed good cause for any delay in filing her request for review. Id.
     at 2-4.   The appellant did not respond to the acknowledgment order, and the
     agency did not submit a response to the appellant’s request for review.
                                                                                         3

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     The appellant’s request for review is untimely filed without good cause shown for
     the delay.
¶4         The Board has jurisdiction over a request for review of an arbitration
     decision when the following conditions are met: (1) the subject matter of the
     grievance is one over which the Board has jurisdiction; (2) the appellant either
     (i) raised a claim of discrimination under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1) with the
     arbitrator in connection with the underlying action, or (ii) raises a claim of
     discrimination in connection with the underlying action under 5 U.S.C.
     § 2302(b)(1) for the first time with the Board if such allegations could not be
     raised in the negotiated grievance procedure; and (3) a final decision has been
     issued. Scanlin v. Social Security Administration, 2022 MSPB 10, ¶ 4; 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.155(a)(1), (c); see 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d). Further, a request for review of an
     arbitrator’s decision is timely if filed 35 days from the issuance of the arbitration
     decision or, if the appellant shows that she received the decision more than 5 days
     after it was issued, within 30 days after the date she received the decision.
     Kirkland v. Department of Homeland Security, 119 M.S.P.R. 74, ¶ 4 (2013);
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.155(b).
¶5         The appellant failed to respond to the acknowledgment order regarding
     timeliness and failed to include a copy of the final arbitration decision with her
     request for review. However, as indicated above, the Magistrate Judge’s order
     identified June 4, 2020, as the date the arbitrator issued a decision denying the
     appellant’s grievance.    Further, there is additional evidence pertaining to the
     timeliness of her request for review. Prior to forwarding the appellant’s request
     for review to the Board, an administrative judge in the Denver Field Office
     initially docketed the appeal as an appeal of the agency’s removal decision , and
     the parties submitted pleadings to the record in that appeal.      Wilson v. Social
     Security Administration, MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-22-0084-I-1, Initial Appeal
     File (0084 IAF), Tabs 1, 10. One such pleading included a copy of the agency
                                                                                       4

     removal decision letter and the June 4, 2020 final arbitration decision denying the
     appellant’s grievance. 0084 IAF, Tab 7 at 6-56.
¶6        As set forth in the January 30, 2019 removal decision, the agency removed
     the appellant based on a charge of misuse of official time with one specification,
     a charge of failure to follow instructions with two specifications, and a charge of
     lack of candor with three specifications. 0084 IAF, Tab 7 at 6-12. The removal
     decision informed the appellant of her options for contesting the agency action.
     Id. at 8-12.   The appellant’s union grieved the removal action, and agency
     management denied the grievance.       RFR File, Tab 1 at 114-29.       The union
     subsequently invoked arbitration on the appellant’s behal f, and following a
     hearing, the arbitrator issued a decision on June 4, 2020, denying the appellant’s
     grievance. 0084 IAF, Tab 7 at 13-56. Because the appellant does not claim that
     she received the arbitration decision more than 5 days after the June 4, 2020
     decision was issued, she should have filed a request for review with the Board by
     July 9, 2020; thus, her request was untimely by approximately 1 year and
     6 months.
¶7        The appellant has the burden of proving by preponderant evidence that the
     request was timely filed with the Board. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B). The
     Board will dismiss an untimely request unless the appellant establishes good
     cause for the delayed filing. Kirkland, 119 M.S.P.R. 74, ¶ 5. To establish good
     cause, the appellant must show that she exercised due diligence or ordinary
     prudence under the particular circumstances of the case.       Id.; see Alonzo v.
     Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). To determine whether
     an appellant has shown good cause, the Board will consider the length of the
     delay, the reasonableness of the excuse and the showing of due diligence, whether
     the appellant is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented evidence of the
     existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her ability to timely
     file the request for review.   Kirkland, 119 M.S.P.R. 74, ¶ 5; see Moorman v.
                                                                                           5

     Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed.
     Cir. 1996) (Table).
¶8         As previously noted, the acknowledgment order informed the appellant that
     a request for review of an arbitration decision is timely if it was filed 35 days
     from the issuance of the decision or, if the decision was received more than
     5 days after it was issued, within 30 days after the date of receipt. RFR File,
     Tab 2 at 3.   It ordered her to provide evidence and argument on the issue of
     timeliness and warned her that noncompliance could result in dismissal of her
     request for review, and the appellant failed to respon d to the order and to include
     a copy of the final arbitration decision with her request for review. Id. at 1, 3.
     Consequently, the appellant has failed to show good cause for her filing delay.
     See Beckley v. U.S. Postal Service, 43 M.S.P.R. 397, 399 (1990) (noting that in
     the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness, regardless of how minimal the
     delay, the Board will not waive its timeliness requirements in the absence of good
     cause shown).
¶9         Nevertheless, an agency’s failure to notify an employee of her Board appeal
     rights when such notification is required generally constitutes good cause for late
     filing. Kirkland, 119 M.S.P.R. 74, ¶ 6. The Board has also made clear that the
     agency’s notice must be explicit and must, among other things, inform the
     employee “[w]hether there is any right to request Board review of a final decision
     on a grievance in accordance with” the provisions governing requests for Board
     review of arbitrators’ decisions. McCurn v. Department of Defense, 119 M.S.P.R.
     226, ¶ 11 (2013); Kirkland, 119 M.S.P.R. 74, ¶ 8. 3           Thus, when an agency
     provides inadequate notice of Board appeal rights, the appellant is not required to
     show that she exercised due diligence in attempting to discover her appeal rights

     3
       As noted in McCurn, the Board revised its regulations after Kirkland was issued, but
     the revision did not change an agency’s obligation to explicitly inform an appellant of
     her right to request Board review of an arbitration decision within 35 days of issuance.
     McCurn, 119 M.S.P.R. 226, ¶ 11 n.5.
                                                                                            6

      but rather must show diligence in filing the appeal after learning that she could.
      McCurn, 119 M.S.P.R. 226, ¶¶ 12-13; Kirkland, 119 M.S.P.R. 74, ¶ 6.
¶10         Unlike in McCurn and Kirkland, the agency explicitly advised the appellant
      in its removal decision of her right to request review of the final arbitration
      decision on her grievance to the Board.          Specifically, the removal decision
      provides a roadmap for pursuing a grievance raising a claim of illegal
      discrimination from the pre-arbitration stage through a request for Board review.
      0084 IAF, Tab 7 at 8-9. Thus, the appellant cannot establish that good cause
      exists for her untimeliness based on the agency’s failure to notify her of her right
      to request review of the arbitration decision with the Board. 4
¶11         Finally, to whatever extent the appellant appears to allege that her union
      representative’s failure to notify her of her right to request review of the
      arbitration decision with the Board is the cause of her untimeliness, it is well
      settled that an appellant is responsible for the errors of her chosen representative .
      See, e.g., Miller v. Department of Homeland Security, 110 M.S.P.R. 258, ¶ 11
      (2008); Sofio v. Internal Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1981); cf.
      McCurn, 119 M.S.P.R. 226, ¶ 13 (acknowledging the well-settled principle that
      an appellant is responsible for the errors of his representative and clarifying that
      the critical issue in that case was not the appellant’s attorney’s failure to inform
      the appellant of his Board appeal rights but the agency’s failure to give the
      appellant proper notice of his right to request review of the arbitration decision
      before the Board). Aside from her bare assertion that she was misled regarding
      the next steps after the arbitration decision, the appellant has not provided any
      additional evidence or argument suggesting that her untimeliness was the product
      of deception, negligence, or malfeasance by her representa tive. See Hamilton v.

      4
        In McCurn, 119 M.S.P.R. 226, ¶ 11 n.6, the Board made clear that its regulations do
      not impose on arbitrators an obligation to notify appellants of their right to further
      appeal in matters subject to Board review. Consequently, the arbitrator’s failure to
      provide such notice here also does not establish good cause for the appellant’s untimely
      filing. 0084 IAF, Tab 7 at 13-56.
                                                                                              7

      Department of Homeland Security, 117 M.S.P.R. 384, ¶ 13 (2012) (finding that
      the appellant’s claim of receiving misguided advice from his attorney was
      unpersuasive    because    he   is   responsible   for   the   errors   of   his   chosen
      representative); cf. Pacilli v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 526,
      ¶ 13 (explaining that, although an appellant generally is responsible for the errors
      of his chosen representative, an exception may lie when the appellant establishes
      that her diligent efforts to prosecute an appeal were thwarted without her
      knowledge by her attorney’s deceptions, negligence, or malfeasance), aff’d,
      404 F. App’x 466 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
¶12         Accordingly, we dismiss the appellant’s request for review as untimely
      filed. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding
      the timeliness of the appellant’s request for review of the arbitration decision.

                                NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
            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.

      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 indicat ed in the notice, the
      Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                          8

      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.
      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
                                                                                  9

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:
                                                                                     10

                            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 a ny court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 6   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).

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
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

      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.
      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.