Court Opinion

ID: 9372991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:01.046955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.257857
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JANET HOWARD,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-1221-17-0106-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,                         DATE: January 27, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Janet Howard, Spotsylvania, Virginia, pro se.

           David M. Brown, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                              Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member
                        Vice Chairman Harris recused herself and
                   did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) appeal as barred by the doctrine of
     res judicata. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
     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,
     which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2         The appellant filed an IRA appeal on November 3, 2016. Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 1. 2 In her IRA appeal, the appellant alleged the agency removed
     her, effective April 28, 2008, in retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity.
     IAF, Tab 1, Tab 5, Tab 9 at 1, Tab 10. The agency asserted the appellant had
     previously litigated her removal before the Board. IAF, Tab 6 at 5. During a

     2
       In her initial appeal, the appellant stated she was attaching a “supporting letter from
     the U.S. Office of Special Counsel [(OSC)].” IAF, Tab 1. Subsequently, in response to
     being ordered to identify the date of her complaint to OSC and when she received
     notification from OSC that it was terminating her complaint, the appellant stated,
     “Appellant has not received such notice, evidence that 120 days have passed since
     appellant filed her complaint with OSC.” IAF, Tab 5 at 3. The initial appeal record
     before us contains no OSC letter. Following the close of the record on review, the
     appellant submitted an additional pleading with multiple attachments, including a
     September 30, 2016 OSC letter. The Board does not accept such submissions after the
     close of the record absent a motion seeking leave to file and describing the nature of
     and need for the pleading. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5), (k). Additionally, any such letter
     is ultimately irrelevant to our decision on this petition for review, given the undisputed
     facts discussed herein.
                                                                                     3

     subsequent status conference with the administrative judge, “the appellant
     confirmed that this appeal contests her 2008 removal for performance reasons, an
     action that she previously appealed to the Board in Howard v. Department of
     Commerce, 2008 WL 5552758 (Nov. 7, 2008), and was the subject of a final
     Board order in Howard v. Department of Commerce, 11 M.S.P.R. 466 (May 19,
     2009).” IAF, Tab 9.
¶3        The administrative judge ordered the appellant to show cause why her
     appeal should not be dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata,
     indicating she should specifically address the following question: “Why is the
     agency wrong when it argues that Board law precludes me from reconsidering her
     allegation that her removal, already upheld by the Board, was lawful? (She may
     wish also to explain why she did not plead a whistleblower defense as part of that
     case).” Id. The administrative judge also correctly explained to the appellant
     that the doctrine of res judicata precludes parties from relitigating issues that
     were, or could have been, raised in a prior action, and is applicable if: (1) the
     prior judgment was rendered by a forum with competent jurisdiction; (2) the prior
     judgment was a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the same cause of action
     and the same parties or their privies were involved in both cases.        Id.; see
     Peartree v. U.S. Postal Service, 66 M.S.P.R. 332, 336-37 (1995).
¶4        In response to the administrative judge’s order, the appellant merely
     reiterated the bases for her claim that “the Appellant’s 2008 removal upheld by
     the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board in 2009 was not lawful.” IAF, Tab 10.
     The administrative judge then dismissed the appeal as barred by the doctrine of
     res judicata, finding the appellant did not argue her IRA appeal involved a
     different action than her prior removal appeal and did not dispute that: (1) the
     Board had jurisdiction to adjudicate her prior removal appeal; (2) her prior
     removal appeal was adjudicated on the merits and became final; (3 ) the parties to
     that action were the same as those in her IRA appeal.        IAF, Tab 13, Initial
     Decision at 3.
                                                                                           4

¶5         In her petition for review, the appellant does not challenge any of these
     findings. Petition for Review File, Tab 1. Rather, she asserts, as to her prior
     appeal of her 2008 removal, that:         (1) the administrative judge denied her
     witnesses, thereby violating her right to due process; (2) the agency failed to
     engage her in settlement discussions; and (3) the administrative judge failed to
     properly consider her failure to accommodate claim.              Id.   None of these
     arguments warrant disturbing the initial decision. Accordingly, the petition for
     review is denied and the initial decision is affirmed.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
           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 t ime
     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.

     3
       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

      (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
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
                                                                                  6

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:
                         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:
                                                                                       7

                            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. 4 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

4
   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.
                                                                                8

      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 we bsite 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.