Court Opinion

ID: 9399155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 06:00:17.01662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:39.023485
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     EDITH M. RIOS,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  NY-0752-15-0229-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,                          DATE: June 1, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Edith M. Rios, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, pro se.

           Katherine Meng, Katherine Stewart, and Lillian Monfort, Washington,
             D.C., 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 involuntary retirement appeal 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     based on an erroneous 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 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 address the appellant’s claim that
     the agency denied her adequate notice and opportuni ty to respond to the
     management-directed reassignment (MDR) and motion to exclude evidence, we
     AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2        The appellant argues that the Board has jurisdiction over her involuntary
     retirement appeal. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 1-3. She disagrees
     with the administrative judge’s findings that she failed to prove that he r
     retirement was involuntary under the unsustainable threatened action theory. Id.
     at 3-5. She further argues that the administrative judge erred in finding that the
     agency did not discriminate against her based on her age. Id. at 4, 8-9. She also
     provides a list of prohibited personnel practice provisions and merit systems
     principles and asserts, without argument, that the agency violated each provision.
     Id. at 1-2. These allegations do not provide a basis for review. See 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.115.
¶3        We also consider the appellant’s arguments that the agency failed to
     properly notify her of the selection criteria, to provide her enough time to respond
     and submit evidence indicating that she was the most senior Industry Operations
     Investigator (her former position) before issuing the MDR, or to suspend the
     MDR order pending an investigation into her allegations of discrimination and
                                                                                    3

     claims of error.   PFR File, Tab 1 at 10.   Although the appellant raised those
     allegations below, the administrative judge did not consider them as a challenge
     to the legitimacy of the agency’s action.     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7,
     Exhibit B at 3, 6-7, Tab 19 at 7-8; see generally Jordan v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 108 M.S.P.R. 119, ¶ 19 (2008) (explaining that the Board construes
     pro se pleadings liberally).
¶4         An agency must ensure that an MDR was based on a legitimate management
     reason and that the employee was given adequate notice of the reassignment. See
     generally Krawchuk v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 94 M.S.P.R. 641, ¶ 9
     (2003) (explaining that to take an adverse action based upon an employee’s
     failure to accept an MDR, the agency must show that the reassignment was based
     upon a legitimate management reason, the employee was given adequate notice of
     the reassignment, and the employee refused to accept the reassignment).      The
     administrative judge found that the MDR was taken for bona fide management
     reasons; we have no basis to disturb that finding. IAF, Tab 30, Initial Decision
     (ID) at 8-13. We further find that the appellant also received adequate notice of
     her MDR because the agency advised her that she would be reassigned from the
     Puerto Rico Satellite Office to the Miami VI Field Office nearly 4 months before
     the December 14, 2014 effective date of her reassignment.          See Wear v.
     Department of Agriculture, 22 M.S.P.R. 597, 598-99 (1984) (notifying an
     employee of the MDR 1 month before the effective date of the reassignment is
     adequate); O’Connor v. Department of the Interior, 21 M.S.P.R. 687, 689 (1984)
     (interpreting adequate notice as having sufficient time between when the
     employee is notified of the MDR and his reporting date) . The appellant has not
     shown that she was entitled to any further notice or opportunity to respond. See
     generally 5 U.S.C. § 7513 (granting the enumerated statutory due process rights
     only to those adverse actions listed under 5 U.S.C. § 7512, of which an MDR
     without a loss in grade or pay is not a part). Thus, the appellant has not shown
     that the administrative judge’s failure to consider those claims affected her
                                                                                           4

     substantive rights. Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282
     (1984) (explaining that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a party’s
     substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an initial decision).
¶5         Finally, the appellant alleges that the administrative judge erred by
     considering evidence relating to her personal and family situation that she
     requested be excluded from the record. PFR File, Tab 1 at 7-8. Although the
     appellant raised her apparent motion in limine as an objection to the status
     conference summary, IAF, Tab 22 at 5, the administrative judge did not rule on
     her motion and instead addressed that evidence in the initial decision, ID at 23.
     To the extent this was error, it is not reversible. Because the administrative judge
     found that the appellant’s personal considerations for refusing the reassignment
     did not factor into whether the agency’s actions were coercive, there is no
     indication that she would have reached a different result had the evidence been
     removed from the record. ID at 23; see Renville v. Department of Health and
     Human Services, 21 M.S.P.R. 737, 739-40 (1984) (finding that the appellant’s
     retirement was not coerced because his reasons for retiring in lieu of being
     reassigned were personal and not attributable to any agency action) , aff’d,
     790 F.2d 93 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Table). Accordingly, we find that the appellant has
     not shown that she was prejudiced by that potential error.               Karapinka v.
     Department of Energy, 6 M.S.P.R. 124, 127 (1981) (finding that the
     administrative judge’s procedural error was of no legal consequence unless it was
     shown to have adversely affected a party’s substantive rights).

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
           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

     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.
                                                                                        5

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 appropri ate
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).
      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
                                                                                   6

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
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
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.
                                                                                 7

      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
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
                                                                                      8

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).
      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 wa rrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

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

      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.