Court Opinion

ID: 9373084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:38.255276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.602282
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     TIMARAH MAYLE,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          AT-0752-16-0728-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: January 18, 2023
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Timarah Mayle, Gulf Breeze, Florida, pro se.

           Donald Vicini, Esquire, Dallas, Texas, 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, whic h
     dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the
     appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good
     cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                        BACKGROUND
¶2           The appellant filed the instant appeal, challenging her May 2016
     termination from her Postal Support Employee Sales & Services Distribution
     Associate position. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1.          In short, the agency
     terminated the appellant during her probationary period for being unable to
     satisfactorily meet the requirements of the position.        Id. at 10.   The agency
     moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.             IAF, Tab 7.      On
     September 13, 2016, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 12, Initial Decision (ID)
     at 4.
¶3           The appellant filed the instant petition for review on April 6, 2017. Petition
     for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency filed a motion to dismiss the petition
     for review as untimely.       PFR File, Tab 4.     The appellant has replied to the
     agency’s motion. PFR File, Tab 5.

                       DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4           The Board’s regulations provide that a petition for review must be filed
     within 35 days after the issuance of the initial decision or, if the appellant shows
     that the initial decision was received more than 5 days after the day of issua nce,
     within 30 days after the date she received the initial decision.            5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(e). Here, the administrative judge informed the appellant that the
     initial decision would become the Board’s final decision on October 18, 2016,
     unless either party filed a petition for review by that date. ID at 5. She further
     informed the appellant that, if she received the initial decision more than 5 days
     after the date of issuance, she could file a petition for review within 30 days after
     the date of receipt. Id. In addition, she notified the appellant that the 30-day
     period would begin to run upon either her or her representative’s receipt of the
     initial decision, whichever occurred first. Id.
                                                                                        3

¶5        The Board’s certificate of service reflects that, on September 13, 2016, the
     initial decision was sent by email to the appellant, who had registered as an
     e-filer. ID at 10; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(e)(1) (stating that registration as an
     e-filer constitutes consent to accept electronic service of pleadings filed by other
     registered e-filers and documents issued by the Board). Thus, we find that the
     30-day period began to run on September 13, 2016, when the appellant received
     the initial decision.     See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2) (explaining that Board
     documents served electronically on registered e-filers are deemed received on the
     date of electronic submission). Based on the foregoing, we further find that the
     deadline for filing a petition for review was October 18, 201 6. See 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(e).
¶6        The appellant filed a petition for review on April 6, 2017, nearly 6 months
     past the filing deadline. PFR File, Tab 1. In an acknowledgement letter, the
     Clerk of the Board informed the appellant that her petition for review was
     untimely filed and that she could file a motion with the Board to accept her filing
     as timely or to waive the time limit for good ca use. PFR File, Tab 2. The letter
     also stated that the motion must be sent by April 21, 2017.         Id. at 2.   The
     appellant did not timely file any argument or evidence concerning the timeliness
     of her petition for review. On April 27, 2017, the agency urged for dismissal of
     the petition for review as untimely filed. PFR File, Tab 4. On that same day, the
     appellant filed a response to the agency’s motion. PFR File, Tab 5. She argues
     that her untimely filing of her petition for review was due to various family and
     financial problems. Id.
¶7        The Board will excuse the late filing of a petition for review on a showing
     of good cause for the delay. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). To establish good cause
     for an untimely filing, 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
                                                                                      4

     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 misfortunate that 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).      Moreover, an allegation of financial and family
     difficulties does not constitute good cause for waiving the deadline for filing a
     petition for review. Robey v. U.S. Postal Service, 105 M.S.P.R. 539, ¶ 16, aff’d,
     253 F. App’x 993 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Garcia v. Office of Personnel Management,
     85 M.S.P.R. 576, ¶ 4, aff’d, 251 F.3d 170 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Table).
¶8        In her response to the agency’s motion to dismiss, the appellant
     acknowledges that the deadline to file her petition for review was October 18,
     2016 and that her petition is untimely. PFR File, Tab 5 at 4. The appellant
     asserts that her petition for review is untimely due to hardships and stress from
     her termination from the agency.        Id.   She details that she has been under
     significant stress and distracted since her termination due to an inability to pay
     her mortgage and utility bills and having suffered a strained relationship with her
     children. Id. at 4-9.
¶9        However, she has not explained how these events contributed to the
     untimeliness of her petition for review.       See Moorman, 60 M.S.P.R. at 63.
     Further, the appellant’s nearly 6-month delay in filing her petition for review is
     significant, notwithstanding her pro se status.      E.g., Dow v. Department of
     Homeland Security, 109 M.S.P.R. 633, ¶¶ 3, 8 (2008) (finding a delay of more
     than 1 month to be significant, notwithstanding the appellant’s pro se status).
     Therefore, under these circumstances, we find the appellant has not shown good
     cause for the delay in filing her petition.
                                                                                            5

¶10         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 underlying appeal.

                               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

      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.
                                                                                          6

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 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
                                                                                  7

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 b y 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:
                                                                                      8

                            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

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

      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.