Court Opinion

ID: 9373073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:34.02764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.568469
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RAVEN SHENETTE MAYES,                           DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-0752-15-0716-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: January 19, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

                THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           James Farris Alexander, Jr., Hawthorne, Florida, for the appellant.

           Joved Gonzalez-Rivera, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 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 removal appeal as settled. 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).
     appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good
     cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

                                        BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant most recently held the position of Health Technician. Initial
     Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1, Tab 6 at 33. The agency proposed her removal in
     May 2014. IAF, Tab 6 at 52-53. The deciding official sustained the removal in
     June 2015. Id. at 44-46.
¶3        The appellant filed the instant appeal challenging her removal. IAF, Tab 1.
     While the appeal was pending, the parties participated in the Board’s Mediation
     Appeals Process and reached a settlement that was signed by the appellant, her
     representative, and agency officials.     IAF, Tabs 19-20.      As a result, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision on March 22, 201 6, dismissing the
     underlying removal appeal as settled. IAF, Tab 21, Initial Decision (ID). The
     decision noted that it would become final on April 26, 2016, unless a petition for
     review was filed by that date. ID at 3. On November 14, 2016, the appella nt
     filed a petition for review containing arguments concerning the merits of her
     removal.   Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.     After instructions from the
     Clerk of the Board concerning timeliness, the appellant also filed a motion to
     accept her petition as timely. PFR File, Tabs 2-4.

                        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4        A petition for review generally must be filed within 35 days after the date
     of issuance of an initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The Board will waive
     this time limit only upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing.
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(f). To establish good cause for the untimely filing of an
     appeal, a party must show that she exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence
     under the particular circumstances of the case. 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 her excuse and her showing of due 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 unavoidable casualty or misfortune which similarly shows a causal
     relationship to her inability to timely file her petition. Moorman v. Department of
     the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
     (Table).
¶5         The appellant assertsthat, although she signed and dated the settlement
     agreement, she did so before relevant terms were added to the document. PFR
     File, Tab 3 at 6. According to the appellant, only her representative agreed to the
     final terms, and he failed to send her a copy of the agreement until months later,
     in October 2016, after which she filed the instant petition for review and fired her
     representative. Id. at 5-8.
¶6         Considering the aforementioned factors, we find that the appellant has
     failed to establish good cause for her untimely petition. The length of the delay,
     more than 6 months, is significant. See Alvarado v. Defense Commissary Agency,
     88 M.S.P.R. 46, ¶¶ 4-5 (2001) (recognizing that a filing delay of almost 2 months
     was significant). In addition, even if we were to accept the appellant’s assertion
     that she did not receive a copy of the March 2016 signed settlement agreement
     until her representative provided her with a copy in October 2016, it is well-
     settled that an appellant is responsible for the errors of her chosen representative .
     Sofio v. Internal Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1981).
¶7         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
     the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness
     of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the
     Board regarding the dismissal of the removal appeal as settled.
                           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
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 choice s 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:

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.
                             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 particu lar
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. ____ , 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 the ir 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, t hen 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
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

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 b y 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 c ompetent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
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.