Court Opinion

ID: 9373365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:28.296644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.849042
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

VALORIE J. MACY,                                DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        PH-1221-17-0324-W-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                          DATE: September 27, 2022
  SECURITY,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Valorie J. Macy, Granby, Massachusetts, pro se.

      Helen E. Moore, Esquire, Boston, Massachusetts, for the agency.

      Larry Zieff, Esquire, Williston, Vermont, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                      FINAL ORDER

¶1        The appellant has petitioned for review of the initial decision in this appeal.
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.      For the reasons set forth below, we
     DISMISS the appeal as settled.
¶2        After the filing of the petition for review, the agency submitted a motion to
     dismiss the appeal on the basis of a settlement agreement entered into by the
     parties, effective August 26, 2021. PFR File, Tab 5. The settlement agreement
     provides, in pertinent part, that the appellant would withdraw with prejudice her
     pending appeal in this case and in three other cases: the joined appeals in Macy
     v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-21-0229-W-1,
     and Macy v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket No. PH-752S-21-
     0211-I-1, and separately, Macy v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB
     Docket No. PH-1221-18-0335-W-1.          Id. at 4-5.    The settlement agreement
     required that the appellant move to dismiss or withdraw these cases within
     7 business days of the effective date of the settlement, i.e., by September 8,
     2021. Id.
¶3        The agency’s motion to dismiss noted that although the appellant filed a
     motion to dismiss her pending appeal in MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-21-0229-
     W-1, 2 she did not move to withdraw the instant case or MSPB Docket
     No. PH-1221-18-0335-W-1 as required by the agreement. The agency further
     stated that when it reminded the appellant to file the motions required in these
     cases, she refused to do so until the agency had paid her the amount agreed upon
     in the settlement agreement (although the requirement that she file the motions
     was not dependent on the agency’s payment). Finally, the agency stated that

     2
       The administrative judge accepted the settlement agreement into the record and
     dismissed this appeal and MSPB Docket No. PH-752S-21-0211-I-1 with prejudice on
     September 2, 2021. Macy v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket
     No. PH-1221-21-0229-W-1, Tab 58, Initial Decision; Macy v. Department of Homeland
     Security, MSPB Docket No. PH-752S-21-0211-I-1, Tab 30, Initial Decision.
                                                                                         3

     when the appellant still had not filed the required motions even after payment
     had been made, the agency filed the motions and the settlement agreement in lieu
     of the appellant. Id. at 12-13.
¶4        The appellant did not respond to the agency’s motion to dismiss. However,
     on November 17, 2021, she filed a motion to withdraw her appeal pursuant to the
     settlement agreement. PFR File, Tab 6.
¶5        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 have 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 the record, independent of any
     prior finding of Board jurisdiction over the underlying matter being settled) .
¶6        Here, we find that the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement
     agreement, understand its terms, and intend for the agreement to be entered into
     the record for enforcement by the Board. 3 PFR File, Tab 5, at 6. In addition, we
     find that the agreement is lawful on its face and that the parties freely ent ered
     into it. Id.
¶7        Accordingly, we find that dismissing the appeal “with prejudice to refiling”
     (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate under these
     circumstances, and we accept the settlement agreement into the record for

     3
       We dismiss the appeal pursuant to the settlement agreement even though the appellant
     filed her withdrawal beyond the deadline specified in the agreement.
                                                                                      4

enforcement purposes. 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 TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR
                        ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS
      If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the
agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by
promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial
decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the
petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not
been fully carried out, and should include the dates and result s of any
communications between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

                         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.

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

      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
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
                                                                                  6

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:
                                                                                      7

                            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. 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).

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 judici al 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. Pu b. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                  8

      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 particula r
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.