Court Opinion

ID: 9373636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:20.852006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.712405
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MELLODY E. HUNTLEY,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                          CH-0752-19-0568-I-2

                  v.

     SOCIAL SECURITY                                  DATE: June 21, 2022
       ADMINISTRATION,
                   Agency.

                   THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Mellody E. Huntley, Glendale Heights, Illinois, pro se.

           James Hail, Esquire, Jordan Stein, and Linda M. Januszyk, Chicago,
             Illinois, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                      REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her removal appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed
     below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review and REMAND the case to

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the Central Regional Office for further adjudication in accordance with this
     Remand Order.

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant was a Legal Assistant with the agency’s Office of Hearing
     Operations.   Huntley v. Social Security Administration, MSPB Docket No.
     CH-0752-19-0568-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 139 at 16. In August 2019,
     the appellant filed an application for a disability retirement annuity with the
     Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Id. at 35, Tab 151 at 32; Huntley v.
     Social Security Administration, MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-19-0568-I-2, Appeal
     File (I-2 AF), Tab 10 at 44. Effective September 9, 2019, the agency removed
     her under chapter 75 of title 5 for conduct unbecoming a Federal employee and
     failure to follow instructions. IAF, Tab 139 at 16-36. She subsequently filed a
     Board appeal challenging her removal. IAF, Tab 1 at 6-12.
¶3        In November 2019, OPM approved the appellant’s application for disability
     retirement. IAF, Tab 164 at 4-6. At the appellant’s request, the administrative
     judge dismissed the appeal without prejudice, pending OPM’s processing of the
     appellant’s annuity.   IAF, Tab 162 at 3, Tab 163 at 1, Tab 165 at 2-3.       She
     subsequently refiled her appeal, alleging she “never received [her] retirement
     settlement agreement.” I-2 AF, Tab 1 at 3.
¶4        Following an order to produce the alleged settlement agreement, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal.    I-2 AF,
     Tab 8 at 2, Tab 17, Initial Decision (ID) at 1-2. The administrative judge found
     that the appellant failed to produce a copy of the alleged settlement agreement or
     any evidence of an oral agreement and failed to identify how the agency breached
     the alleged settlement agreement. ID at 5-6. Accordingly, the administrative
     judge found that the Board lacked jurisdiction over “this compliance appeal to
     enforce the terms” of an alleged settlement agreement. ID at 6.
                                                                                            3

¶5         The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1.     Among other things, she references the “Retirement Annuity
     Settlement Agreement” and reasserts that her removal was “wrongful.” Id. at 5-6.
     The agency has responded to her petition for review, and the appellant has replied
     to its response. 2 PFR File, Tabs 4-6.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     The administrative judge erred by not adjudicating the appellant’s removal.
¶6         The administrative judge dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed
     to produce any evidence of a settlement agreement over which the Board might
     have jurisdiction. ID at 4-6. In addition to reasserting her settlement agreement
     claim, the appellant on review challenges her removal, which was the subject of
     her original Board appeal. IAF, Tab 1 at 6-12; PFR File, Tab 1 at 5.
¶7         The Board has jurisdiction over the removal of a tenured Federal employee.
     5 U.S.C. §§ 7511(a)(1), 7512(1), 7513(d); see Epley v. Inter-American
     Foundation, 122 M.S.P.R. 572, ¶ 14 (2015) (finding that an individual who met
     the definition of “employee” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A) was entitled to
     appeal her removal to the Board).        Under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(j), an individual’s
     status under any retirement system may not be taken into account in a case

     2
       The appellant has additionally filed three pleadings on review apparently seeking to
     change her name in connection with this appeal. PFR File, Tab 21 at 4, Tab 23 at 4,
     Tab 32 at 4. However, the various requests differ on what exact name she prefers. Id.
     Therefore, to the extent the appellant is seeking to change her name, we deny her
     request for lack of clarity.
     To the extent the appellant is attempting in these pleadings to supplement her
     arguments on review, raise new matters, or initiate the settlement process, we decline to
     consider them. PFR File, Tab 23 at 4-6, Tab 32 at 4-5. As the Office of the Clerk of
     the Board previously advised the parties, once the record closes on review, no
     additional evidence or argument will be accepted unless it is new and material and the
     party submitting it shows that it was not readily available before the record closed.
     PFR File, Tab 2 at 1-2; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(k). The appellant has submitted her
     pleading after the close of the record and has not made the required showing. The
     appellant may wish to raise her request to engage in settlement discussions with the
     agency and the administrative judge on remand.
                                                                                      4

     involving a removal from the service. Thus, when an agency issues its removal
     decision before an appellant retires, the Board retains jurisdiction over the
     appellant’s removal.    Mays v. Department of Transportation, 27 F.3d 1577,
     1579-81 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Paula v. Social Security Administration, 119 M.S.P.R.
     138, ¶ 12 (2013). However, if an agency rescinds its removal decision as the
     result of an employee’s voluntary decision to retire retroactive to the effective
     date of the removal, the removal may be moot, thus depriving the Board of
     jurisdiction. Jenkins v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 911 F.3d 1370, 1374-75
     (Fed. Cir. 2019); Cooper v. Department of the Navy, 108 F.3d 324, 325-26
     (Fed. Cir. 1997).
¶8        There appears to be no dispute that the appellant is an employee under
     5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(A). IAF, Tab 139 at 16, 30-33. The appellant’s removal
     here was effected September 9, 2019. Id. at 16. There is no indication in the
     record that the agency rescinded the removal.      However, OPM approved and
     began payments on the appellant’s disability retirement annuity. IAF, Tab 164;
     I-2 AF, Tab 11 at 48-52.      Accordingly, we must remand this appeal for a
     determination of whether the Board retains jurisdiction over her removal under
     5 U.S.C. § 7701(j), or if the removal is now moot. If the administrative judge
     determines the Board has jurisdiction over the removal, she should schedule the
     appellant’s requested hearing on the merits. IAF, Tab 1 at 2.

     The administrative judge correctly determined that the Board has no jurisdiction
     over the appellant’s alleged settlement agreement.
¶9        The appellant on review suggests that the agency breached the “Retirement
     Annuity Settlement Agreement,” which she states she “never received .”        PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 5 at 4. The administrative judge found that the appellant did
     not produce a settlement agreement, show evidence of an oral settlement
     agreement, or demonstrate how the agency breached the alleged settlement
     agreement. ID at 6. The Board has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement
     that has been entered into the record for that purpose. Delorme v. Department of
                                                                                           5

      the Interior, 124 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶¶ 9-21 (2017). Because neither party submitted
      an agreement or asserted the Board has authority to enforce it, we agree with the
      administrative judge that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the alleged breach. 3
¶10         In making our decision, we have not considered the documents the appellant
      has submitted with her petition for review. PFR File, Tab 1 at 10-38, Tab 5
      at 8-29, Tab 6 at 4-6. The Board will grant a petition for review when, among
      other reasons, new and material evidence is available that, despite t he petitioner’s
      due diligence, was not available when the record closed.         Ellis v. U.S. Postal
      Service, 121 M.S.P.R. 570, ¶ 6 (2014); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). The documents
      submitted by the appellant predate the close of record below, and the appellant
      has not explained why she did not submit them at that time. Ellis, 121 M.S.P.R.
      570, ¶ 6; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d); IAF, Tab 8 at 3; see Avansino v. U.S. Postal
      Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 213-14 (1980) (explaining that under 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.115, the Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for the first
      time with a petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the
      record was closed before the administrative judge despite the party’s due
      diligence). Further, to the extent the documents are already in the record below,
      they are not new evidence. Meier v. Department of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247,
      256 (1980).

      3
        After the appellant refiled her appeal, she expressed disagreement with OPM’s
      processing of her retirement annuity. For example, she questioned whether she should
      have been allowed to take a regular retirement and suggested there was a discrepancy in
      her benefits. I-2 AF, Tab 9 at 4, 22. She appears to re-raise these claims on review.
      PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 5 at 4-5. To the extent the appellant disagrees with OPM’s
      handling of her annuity and related benefits, she may file a separate appeal naming
      OPM as the responding agency. We express no opinion as to the Board’s jurisdiction
      over such an appeal. Generally, the Board has jurisdiction over retirement matters only
      after OPM has issued a reconsideration decision or the appellant has repeatedly
      requested such a decision and the evidence indicates that OPM does not intend to issue
      one. Fletcher v. Office of Personnel Management, 118 M.S.P.R. 632, ¶ 5 (2012). The
      record before us does not contain a reconsideration decision.
                                                                                       6

                                          ORDER
¶11        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the Central
      Regional Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

      FOR THE BOARD:                          /s/ for
                                              Jennifer Everling
                                              Acting Clerk of the Board
      Washington, D.C.