Court Opinion

ID: 9372987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:01:59.733929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.079423
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KEITHY L. BAILEY,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       DA-0752-21-0428-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: January 27, 2023
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Vanessa Duncan-Smith, Hackensack, New Jersey, for the appellant.

           Albert Lum, Brooklyn, New York, for the appellant.

           Theresa M. Gegen, Esquire, St. Louis, Missouri, 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,
     which dismissed her appeal as untimely filed without good cause shown.
     On review, the appellant challenges the administrative judge’s finding that

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     she did not exercise due diligence or ordinary prudence in monitoring her appeal
     to ensure it was timely filed after submitting the relevant paperwork to her
     representatives. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3. She argues that the
     untimeliness of her appeal is due to Postal Service delivery errors and her
     representatives’ lack of diligence. Id. at 3-5. Generally, we grant petitions such
     as this one only in the following circumstances:       the initial decision cont ains
     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 argu ment 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 . Except as
     expressly MODIFIED by this Final Order to explain why her arguments regarding
     mail delivery and lack of due diligence by her representatives do not provide
     good cause to excuse the delay, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         The Board has routinely held that an appellant is bound by the action or
     inaction of her chosen representative, and delays caused by a representative will
     not constitute good cause to excuse a filing delay. Strong v. Department of the
     Navy, 86 M.S.P.R. 243, ¶ 7 (2000). The Board will bypass this general rule when
     the appellant has proven that her diligent efforts to prosecute her appeal were,
     without her knowledge, thwarted by her representative’s deceptions and
     negligence. Id. However, an appellant remains responsible for monitoring the
     progress of her appeal, and her unwarranted belief that her representative is
     pursuing her appeal is not a proper basis for finding due diligence. Id. Here,
                                                                                             3

     the appellant has not alleged deception by her representatives.                  Further,
     as discussed below, she has not shown that she monitored her appeal.
¶3         Alternatively, it may be appropriate to find good cause for an attorney’s
     negligent failure to meet a deadline when an appellant did “everything that could
     reasonably be expected of her” to ensure her attorney met the deadline, but he
     still failed to do so. Herring v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 778 F.3d 1011,
     1012-15, 1017-18 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding good cause for a 10-day filing delay
     when the appellant had taken all steps necessary to ensure a timely filing,
     including contacting her attorney 6 days before the deadline and getting assurance
     that the appeal would be timely filed) (emphasis in original).             We find the
     circumstances here are not appropriate for finding good caus e on this basis.
¶4         On August 12, 2021, the appellant mailed her appeal form and other
     materials to her representatives via U.S. Postal Service Express Mail.             Initial
     Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7 at 12-13.          One of her representatives submitted a
     declaration below stating that he regularly checked the post office box to which
     the appellant mailed her Express Mail package on August 12, 2021, and he did
     not receive either the package or notice that it was available for pick up .
     Id. at 13. The agency’s tracking information reflects that, as of August 16, 2021,
     it had generated two notices that the package was available. IAF, Tab 10 at 27.
     After no one retrieved the package, the agency designated it as unclaimed on
     August 28, 2021, and proceeded to return it to the appellant. IAF, Tab 7 at 13,
     Tab 10 at 27. The Postal Service ultimately delivered the returned package to the
     appellant after the deadline for filing the instant appeal. 2 IAF, Tab 10 at 26.

     2
       The Board has found that an appellant who fails to pick up mail delivered to her post
     office box is deemed to have constructively received the mail the date it was delivered
     to the box. Little v. U.S. Postal Service, 124 M.S.P.R. 183, ¶ 9 (2017); 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.22(b)(3). We find it unnecessary here to resolve whether the appellant’s
     representatives received constructive notice of the appellant’s August 12, 2021 package
     when the Postal Service attempted delivery. Assuming that her representatives did not,
     as claimed, receive either the package or notices that it was available, we still find the
     appellant failed to exercise due diligence.
                                                                                      4

¶5        Here, the appellant did not do everything she could to ensure timely filing
     of her appeal. For the first time on review, she attests that, on the same day that
     she mailed her package containing her appeal form, she “verbally notified” one of
     her representatives that she sent the paperwork and emailed another a copy of all
     paperwork she had mailed via Express Mail along with the Express Mail tracking
     number.   PFR File, Tab 1 at 3.     She indicated that her representatives never
     notified her that they did not receive her paperwork. Id.; IAF, Tab 7 at 12-13.
     However, she also did not contact her representatives to inquire about her appeal
     until September 29, 2021, when she received information that she was “being
     taken off the employment roll.” IAF, Tab 7 at 12-13. At that time, one of her
     representatives advised her that he never received her appeal paperwork. Id. The
     appellant filed her appeal the next day but by that point was untimely by
     approximately 45 days. IAF, Tab 1, Tab 10 at 28-33.
¶6        We agree with the administrative judge that the appellant did not take the
     necessary steps to ensure her appeal was timely filed.       IAF, Tab 12, Initial
     Decision (ID) at 5. On review, she does not challenge the administrative judge’s
     finding that she did not contact her representatives at any point between
     August 12, when she mailed her appeal package, and the August 16, 2021 filing
     deadline to confirm that they received her paperwork and would file the appeal on
     her behalf.   ID at 5.   She also does not dispute that she failed to check the
     tracking information for her package, which reflected that it was unclaimed and
     being returned to her as of August 28, 2021. ID at 5; IAF, Tab 7 at 9. Instead,
     she waited until she learned she was being taken off the a gency’s rolls to follow
     up on whether her representatives had filed her appeal.
                                                                                      5

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.     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 cas e, 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).

3
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may h ave 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

      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
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
                                                                                  7

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 secur ity. 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
                                                                                      8

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

      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

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.
                                                                             9

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.