Court Opinion

ID: 9373800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:29.649822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.673048
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JACQUELIN CHARLENE BARBOUR,                      DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                          DC-1221-21-0517-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND                         DATE: March 31, 2022
       HUMAN SERVICES,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Edith Lee, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, for the appellant.

           Constance Kossally, Esquire, and Elise Harris, Atlanta, Georgia, for the
             agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision,
     which dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of
     jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the followin g
     circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the initial decision is 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 and AFFIRM the initial decision.
     However, because the appellant has submitted evidence on petition for review
     that she has now exhausted her administrative remedies before the Office of
     Special Counsel (OSC), we FORWARD the matter to the regional office for
     further adjudication.
¶2         The appellant filed this IRA appeal on July 6, 2021. Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 1. She indicated in her appeal that she was challenging a letter of
     reprimand dated a few days earlier on June 30, 2021.         Id. at 4.   She further
     indicated that she had filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint with OSC on the
     day the agency issued the letter of reprimand. Id. at 5.
¶3         The administrative judge issued an Order to Show Cause to the appellant on
     the issue of exhaustion of her administrative remedies with OSC. IAF, Tab 3.
     The administrative judge explained that the Board would only have jurisdiction
     over the appellant’s IRA appeal if the appellant had filed a whistleblower reprisal
     complaint with OSC and either OSC had notified her that it was terminating its
     investigation or 120 calendar days had passed without a termination notice.
     Id. at 2. She ordered the appellant to submit evidence and argument regarding the
     exhaustion issue within 10 calendar days. Id. Having received no response from
     the appellant after 14 days, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
                                                                                         3

     dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on a failure to prove
     exhaustion. IAF, Tab 6, Initial Decision (ID).
¶4         The deadline for filing a petition for review of the initial decision was
     August 27, 2021. ID at 3. The appellant filed a petition for review 18 days later
     on September 14, 2021. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. To explain her
     filing delay, the appellant indicated that she had just received a final
     determination from OSC on September 9, 2021. Id. at 4. She submitted copies of
     emails between her and an attorney from OSC regarding her complaint.
     Id. at 5-10. The agency did not respond to the appellant’s petiti on for review.
¶5         As the administrative judge correctly advised the appellant, an appellant
     filing an IRA appeal has not exhausted her OSC remedy unless she has filed a
     complaint with OSC and either OSC has notified her that it was terminating its
     investigation of her allegations or 120 calendar days have passed since she first
     sought corrective action. 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3); Jundt v. Department of Veterans
     Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 688, ¶ 6 (2010). The appellant has shown no error in the
     administrative judge’s determination that, as of the date of the initial decision,
     she had not exhausted her remedies with OSC. We therefore deny the petition for
     review. See Jundt, 113 M.S.P.R. 688, ¶¶ 5-6. 2
¶6         The Board’s practice is to adjudicate an appeal that was premature when it
     was filed but becomes ripe while pending with the Board. Id., ¶ 7. It appears
     from the documents submitted on petition for review that the appellant has now
     exhausted her remedies with OSC regarding the June 30, 2021 letter of
     reprimand. 3   PFR File, Tab 1 at 10.     We therefore forward the matter to the
     regional office for further adjudication. See Jundt, 113 M.S.P.R. 688, ¶ 7.

     2
      Because we are denying the appellant’s petition for review on the merits, we need not
     address the apparent untimeliness of the petition.
     3
      The appellant filed a separate IRA appeal in 2019 regarding other personnel actions.
     Barbour v. Department of Health & Human Services, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-20-
     0234-W-1. The matters raised in that appeal are not before the Board in this matter.
                                                                                         4

                           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.
      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:

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

                             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
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
                                                                                  6

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:
                            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
                                                                                      7

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).
      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 Federa l
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.

5
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial revie w 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 re view of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Cou rt 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.
                                                                        8

      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.