Court Opinion

ID: 9951578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 15:01:12.567863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:49.261658
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

LENA JEFFERSON-WILSON,                          DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DE-1221-18-0079-W-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: March 15, 2024
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Matthew Brinegar , Esquire, Oakland, California, for the appellant.

      Scott MacMillan , Esquire, Phoenix, Arizona, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) appeal as untimely filed.
Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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).
      Under 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3)(A), an appellant may file an IRA appeal with
the Board once the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) closes its investigation into
her complaint and no more than 60 days have elapsed since notification of the
closure was provided to her.      See Heimberger v. Department of Commerce ,
121 M.S.P.R. 10, ¶ 6 (2014). Under the Board’s regulations implementing that
statutory time limit, an IRA appeal must be filed no later than 65 days after the
date that OSC issues its close-out letter, or if the letter is received more than
5 days after its issuance, within 60 days of the date of receipt.     Id.; 5 C.F.R.
§ 1209.5(a)(1).   This deadline may be extended when the appellant, despite
having diligently pursued her rights, was unable to make a timely filing. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1209.5(b).
      Notwithstanding the implementing provisions of 5 C.F.R. § 1209.5, the
filing period for an IRA appeal is statutory—not regulatory. 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)
(3)(A); Heimberger, 121 M.S.P.R. 10, ¶ 9. Unlike the Board’s regulatory time
limits for appeals filed under 5 U.S.C. § 7701, the statutory time limit for filing
an IRA appeal cannot be waived for good cause shown because there is no
statutory mechanism for doing so. Id. However, the filing deadline might be
subject to equitable tolling, under which the filing period is suspended for
                                                                                  3

equitable reasons, such as when the complainant has actively pursued her judicial
remedies by filing a defective pleading within the statutory period, or when she
has been induced or tricked by her adversary’s misconduct into allowing the
deadline to pass.   Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96
(1990); Bauer v. Department of the Army, 88 M.S.P.R. 352, ¶ 9 (2001); Wood v.
Department of the Air Force, 54 M.S.P.R. 587, 592 (1992); 5 C.F.R. § 1209.5(b).
      On review, the appellant does not challenge the administrative judge’s
determination that her IRA appeal was untimely filed. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 3-4. She opines that the administrative judge erred
in finding that, “because the misdirected fax was not sent to a wrong
administrative agency (as opposed to a third party), [she] waived her right to
appeal.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 7. The appellant maintains that 5 C.F.R. § 1209.5(b),
which addresses the applicability of equitable tolling in untimely IRA appeals,
was not meant to be read so narrowly. Id. at 5.
      We discern no error in the administrative judge’s ultimate determination
that equitable tolling does not apply in this case. ID at 7. Equitable tolling is a
rare remedy that is to be applied in unusual circumstances and generally requires
a showing that the litigant has been pursuing her rights diligently and some
extraordinary circumstances stood in her way.      Heimberger, 121 M.S.P.R. 10,
¶ 10. It does not extend to a garden variety claim of “excusable neglect.” Irwin,
498 U.S. at 96; Wood, 54 M.S.P.R. at 593. The failure of the appellant’s attorney
to timely file the IRA appeal with the Board, while unfortunate, more closely
resembles a case of garden variety neglect rather than the type of extraordinary
circumstance that warrants tolling a statutory deadline. See Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96;
Heimberger, 121 M.S.P.R. 10, ¶¶ 10–12; Pacilli v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 526, ¶¶ 10–11, aff’d, 404 F. App’x 466 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The appellant’s attorney used the wrong number in faxing the appeal and then
failed to ensure that it was received.   IAF, Tab 7 at 8-9.     The action of the
appellant’s attorney to file the appeal with the Board was triggered only by the
                                                                                  4

notification of the private party who received the appeal, after the deadline had
already passed. Id. at 9, 16. We agree with the administrative judge that the
appellant’s failure to timely file an appeal was the result of her own lack of due
diligence in preserving her legal rights, which is not enough to merit the
application of equitable tolling. ID at 7; see Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96.
      We have considered the appellant’s allegation that the filing deadline
should be equitably tolled because she filed a defective pleading when she
mistakenly faxed the appeal to a private party. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. Although it
is well settled that active pursuit of judicial remedies by filing a defective
pleading during the statutory period may be a basis upon which to invoke
equitable tolling, in the examples set out by the Supreme Court in Irwin, the
litigant either timely filed a correct complaint in the wrong court or a deficient
complaint with the appropriate adjudicative body. See Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96 n.3.
Even in National Cement Company v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission, 27 F.3d 526, 530-31 (11th Cir. 1994), which the appellant claims to
be an analogous case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit observed
that the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission was able to route the
litigant’s complaint to its intended recipient, because he mailed his appeal to the
correct entity but the incorrect office. In this case, however, the appellant filed
the IRA appeal with a private party, who was not affiliated with the Board,
rendering the Board unable to ascertain that she filed the appeal or to notify her
of the error.
      Although she challenges the administrative judge’s reliance on three
Federal court decisions in that they do not directly implicate 5 C.F.R.
§ 1209.5(b), the appellant has not established that this situation falls within the
limited circumstances warranting equitable tolling under 5 C.F.R. § 1209.5(b).
PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-10; ID at 6-7. The appellant has neither filed a defective
pleading during the statutory period nor alleged that she was tricked or induced
by OSC or the agency into allowing the statutory deadline to pass.
                                                                                  5

      We have considered the appellant’s allegation that the four Board decisions
upon which the administrative judge relies are distinguishable from the instant
appeal in that they discuss the good cause standard in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(c),
which is not pertinent to the issue of whether equitable tolling applies. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 8-9.     Although she observes that the good cause standard is not
applicable, the appellant nonetheless argues that she met the factors for
consideration in determining whether good cause exists. Id. at 10-11. Even if the
apparent delay in filing is minimal, as the appellant alleges, the Whistleblower
Protection Act does not make any provision for late filings or grant the Board
authority to waive the time limit for good cause shown.        See MacDonald v.
Department of Justice, 105 M.S.P.R. 83, ¶ 11 (2007); Coufal v. Department of
Justice, 98 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶ 31 (2004).
      To the extent the appellant is arguing that the negligence of her attorney
led to the untimely filing, her argument is unavailing.         The appellant is
responsible for the errors of her chosen representative . Sofio v. Internal Revenue
Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1981); see Pacilli, 113 M.S.P.R. 526, ¶ 10
(suggesting that the statutory time limit precludes the Board from waiving the
deadline, even if a belated IRA appeal is the result of neglect or misconduct of
the appellant’s attorney).
      We agree with the administrative judge that the appellant’s IRA appeal was
untimely filed and that she has not alleged any circumstances that would warrant
the application of equitable tolling to excuse her untimely filing. Because the
appeal is dismissed on timeliness grounds, we do not reach the jurisdictional
issue. Heimberger, 121 M.S.P.R. 10, ¶ 13.
                                                                                         6

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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:

2
  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.
                                                                                    7

                             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. 420 (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
                                                                                  8

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
                                                                                      9

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. 3   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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

3
   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.
                                                                       10

      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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.