Court Opinion

ID: 9373251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:44.20046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.584507
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DAVID SHU,                                      DOCKET NUMBERS
                         Appellant,                  SF-0353-11-0065-X-1
                                                     SF-0353-11-0065-C-1
                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
                   Agency.                           DATE: November 7, 2022

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           David Shu, Santa Maria, California, pro se.

           Jessica Villegas and Jeremy M. Watson, San Francisco, California, for the
             agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         This compliance proceeding was initiated by the appellant’s petition for
     enforcement of the Board’s September 25, 2014 Order in Shu v. U.S. Postal
     Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-11-0065-B-2. On December 21, 2016, the

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential o rders,
     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 B oard
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                      2

     Board issued a non-final order finding the agency not in compliance with its
     September 25, 2014 Order.         Shu v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
     No. SF-0353-11-0065-C-1, Order (Dec. 21, 2016) (Compliance Order). For the
     reasons discussed below, we find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the
     petition for enforcement.

        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2           The appellant commenced work as a part-time flexible letter carrier for the
     agency on March 23, 2002.          Shu v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
     No. SF-0353-11-0065-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 3 at 7.                 On
     September 22, 2003, the appellant suffered a back injury that led to him being
     absent from work beginning on September 24, 2003. Id. at 4. On September 30,
     2003, the agency informed the appellant that he was in absent without leave
     (AWOL) status and had been in an unscheduled absent status since September 24,
     2003.    Shu v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-11-0065-B-1,
     Remand File (B-1 RF), Tab 17 at 5-8. On October 20, 2003, the appellant filed a
     workers’ compensation claim for his September 22, 2003 injury.         IAF, Tab 3
     at 4-6. On November 7, 2003, the agency issued a Notice of Removal to the
     appellant based on a charge of Irregular Attendance/AWOL. IAF, Tab 6 at 40 -42.
     The appellant’s removal was effectuated December 12, 2003. I AF, Tab 3 at 4,
     Tab 6 at 38.
¶3           On March 14, 2008, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
     (OWCP) issued a decision stating that the appellant was temporarily totally
     disabled between September 24 and October 15, 2003, and entitled to
     compensation for this period. B-1 RF, Tab 16 at 16-18. On March 1, 2009, the
     appellant requested that he be reinstated to employment with the agency, but on
     April 27, 2009, the agency rejected that request. Id. at 19-20. On July 28, 2010,
     OWCP issued an additional decision finding that the appellant suffered from a
     compensable injury between September 23 and November 6, 2003. IAF, Tab 3
                                                                                       3

     at 4-6. On August 27, 2010, the appellant requested that the agency resto re him
     to duty. IAF, Tab 6 at 6. The agency offered the appellant a carrier position in
     Santa Maria, California, and the appellant accepted, commencing work on
     November 6, 2010. IAF, Tab 21 at 1.
¶4         On October 25, 2010, the appellant appealed to the Board , alleging that the
     agency had denied him restoration to duty following his recovery from a
     compensable injury. IAF, Tab 1. Following various administrative appeals and
     remands, on September 25, 2014, the administrative judge issued an initial
     decision finding that the agency’s delay in restoring the appellant to duty between
     March 1, 2009, and November 6, 2010, was an improper denial of restoration.
     Shu v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-11-0065-B-2, Remand
     File, Tab 40, Remand Initial Decision (RID) at 10-13. The administrative judge
     instructed the agency to:   restore the appellant as of March 1, 2009; pay the
     appellant the appropriate amount of back pay; provide the appellant with service
     credit for the entire period of absence, from Dece mber 12, 2003, to November 6,
     2010, for the purposes of rights and benefits based on seniority and length of
     service pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 353.107; and inform the appellant in writing of all
     actions taken to comply with the Board’s order.      RID at 16-17.    The remand
     initial decision became the final decision of the Board on October 30, 2014, after
     neither party petitioned the full Board for review. RID at 17.
¶5        On November 21, 2014, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement of the
     September 25, 2014 remand initial decision. Shu v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
     Docket No. SF-0353-11-0065-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 1. Over the course
     of multiple pleadings, the appellant alleged that the agency failed to comply with
     the remand initial decision by:      (1) failing to provide the appellant with
     appropriate seniority status and service credit for the period between
     December 13, 2003, and November 6, 2010; (2) improperly removing him from
     service; and (3) failing to pay him the correct amount of back pa y and interest.
     CF, Tab 1 at 4-7, Tabs 26-36.
                                                                                         4

¶6         On June 29, 2016, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial
     decision granting the petition for enforcement in part. CF, Tab 49, Complia nce
     Initial Decision (CID). The administrative judge found that the agency was not in
     compliance because it failed to: (1) provide a sufficient explanation of the back
     pay check issued to the appellant; (2) provide an explanation of how it calculated
     the appellant’s step increase; (3) provide an explanation of how it arrived at the
     date of February 25, 2005, for retirement service credit; and (4) properly withhold
     the appellant’s unemployment compensation withholding.                CID at 8-17.
     Accordingly, the administrative judge ordered the agency to:            (1) provide
     evidence that it paid the appellant all back pay, interest, and benefits for the back
     pay period, along with a narrative explanation of how the agency arrived at its
     calculations, with an accounting of any deductions or other adjustments;
     (2) provide evidence that it credited the appropriate amount of retirement service
     to the appellant for the back pay period, with a narrative explanation of the
     amount of service; and (3) remit appropriate payment to the State of Nevada for
     the unemployment compensation withheld from the appellant’s back pay and
     provide evidence of such payment to the State of Nevada. CID at 17.
¶7         On August 18, 2016, the appellant filed a petition for review of the
     compliance initial decision. Compliance Petition for Review (CPFR) File, Tab 3.
     On December 21, 2016, the Board issued a nonprecedential, non -final order that
     denied the appellant’s petition for review and affirmed the compliance initial
     decision. Compliance Order at 5-11. The Board referred the matter to the Office
     of General Counsel to obtain compliance. Compliance Order at 11.
¶8         On August 26, 2016, the agency submitted a statement of compliance
     pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(6)(i).      Shu v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
     Docket No. SF-0353-11-0065-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 4. In its
     statement, the agency included a narrative summary explaining how the agency
     arrived at its back pay calculations, with an accounting for all deductions and
     other adjustments.   Id. at 6-66.   The agency’s submission also stated that the
                                                                                           5

      appellant’s new service computation date would be considered February 11, 2005,
      and included an explanation as to how the agency reached that date. Id. at 46.
      However, the agency’s submission still lacked any explanation as to how the
      agency calculated the appellant’s step increase for the back pay period, and
      further lacked any evidence showing that it remitted appropriate payment to the
      State of Nevada for unemployment compensation withheld from the appellant’s
      back pay.     CRF, Tab 4.     For the unemployment compensa tion, the agency
      indicated that it attempted to expedite the repayment process but was not able to
      so. Id. at 1-2.
¶9          On September 7 and September 9, 2016, the appellant filed submissions in
      response to the agency’s statement of compliance. In his pleadi ngs, the appellant
      put forward several arguments, many of which simply contested the findings from
      the compliance initial decision and the Board’s order following his petition for
      review of that decision regarding his entitlement to the unemployment funds, his
      seniority, and his leave balances. CRF, Tabs 9-11. The appellant also argued,
      however, that the agency failed to provide any explanation for how it calculated
      his step increases, failed to account for the time he spent receiving OWCP
      compensation for his step increase calculation, and failed to prove it complied
      with the prior order regarding his unemployment compensation.             CRF, Tab 9
      at 9-15. On March 6, 2017, the appellant filed a second supplemental pleading,
      which contained evidence that he had been issued a Form 1099 for his prior
      unemployment compensation, implying that the agency may have paid this
      compensation directly to him rather than to the State of Nevada, as ordered by the
      Board. CRF, Tab 11 at 3-4.
¶10         On July 31, 2017, the Board issued an order requesting further information
      from the agency.     CRF, Tab 12.        The Board ordered the agency to provide
      evidence    indicating   whether   the    agency   had   remitted   the    appellant’s
      unemployment funds to the State of Nevada or to the appellant directly, a nd to
                                                                                          6

      provide a fuller explanation of how the agency calculated the appellant’s step
      increase date. Id. at 2-3.
¶11           On August 14, 2017, the agency filed a response to the Board’s July 31,
      2017 Order. The agency stated in its response that it remitted the unemployment
      funds to the State of Nevada and included evidence to that effect. CRF, Tab 13
      at 4, 6-8. The agency further stated that it was still working to reconstruct its
      narrative for the calculation of the appellant’s step increase date and would
      provide that information shortly thereafter. Id. at 4-5. On August 27, 2017, the
      appellant filed a reply to the agency’s response, which reiterated his arguments
      from his September 2016 pleadings. CRF, Tab 14 at 4 -28.
¶12           On February 1, 2018, the agency filed a submission addressing the
      appellant’s step increase date. CRF, Tabs 16-17. The agency contended that its
      April 13, 2015 pleading submitted to the administrative judge during the initial
      compliance litigation sufficiently explained its initial step increase date
      calculation, even accounting for the time period during which the appellant
      received OWCP benefits. CRF, Tab 17 at 4-8. With respect to that time period,
      the agency stated that while it did originally fail to include that time period in its
      initial step increase date calculation, its revised calculations accounting for the
      OWCP time period did not result in any change to the appellant’s step increase
      date.   Id. at 5-8.   The agency included evidence in support of its assertion
      regarding the OWCP time period. Id. at 9-35.
¶13           On February 7, 2018, the appellant replied to the agency’s submission.
      CRF, Tab 18. The appellant stated that the agency’s assertions as to what days
      the appellant was previously on leave without pay (LWOP) status were incorrect
      and provided evidence in support of his claim. Id. at 4-12. The appellant further
      argued that the agency’s incorrect assessment of his LWOP status led to an
      incorrect calculation of his step increase date. Id. at 4-5.
¶14           On May 10, 2018, the Board issued a second order requesting further
      information from the agency. CRF, Tab 19. The order noted that the agency’s
                                                                                       7

      evidence, in the form of the appellant’s time and attendance statements, did not
      appear to reflect the appellant’s time spent in a non-pay status, as claimed by the
      agency.   Id. at 1-2.   The Board thus ordered the agency to provide evidence
      establishing that the appellant was, in fact, in a non-pay status during the time
      periods asserted. Id.
¶15         On July 3, 2018, the agency filed a submission responsive to the Board’s
      May 10, 2018 Order.       CRF, Tab 26.       The pleading contained additional
      explanation and evidence about the appellant’s time and attendance statements
      establishing how the statements demonstrated the appellant’s non-pay status for
      the previously asserted time periods. Id. at 4-15. On July 4, 2018, the appellant
      replied to the agency’s pleading, arguing that the agency’s evidence did not
      establish him as specifically being on LWOP status during t he time periods in
      question. CRF, Tab 27 at 4-9.
¶16         On August 2, 2018, the Board issued a third order requesting further
      information from the agency.     CRF, Tab 28.     The order requested additional
      information from the agency about its step increase policy an d how it operated for
      employees not in LWOP status but still in non-pay status.         Id. at 1-2.   On
      August 16, 2018, the agency filed a new submission that explained how employee
      step increases are calculated for employees in non -pay status and included
      evidence supporting its explanation. CRF, Tab 29 at 4-67. On August 18, 2018,
      the appellant replied to the agency’s submission, repeating his argument that his
      step increase date should not have been deferred because of his non -pay status.
      CRF, Tab 30 at 4-18.
¶17        On July 3, 2021, the appellant filed additional documentation related to his
      2015 removal by the agency. CRF, Tab 33. On July 6, 2021, the appellant filed
      in MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-11-0065-C-1 a motion for leave to submit the same
      additional documents in that docket number, arguing that these documents were
      not previously available to him. CPFR File, Tab 13 at 3.
                                                                                          8

                                          ANALYSIS
¶18         When the Board finds a personnel action unwarranted or not sustainable, it
      orders that the appellant be placed, as nearly as poss ible, in the situation he would
      have been in had the wrongful personnel action not occurred.                House v.
      Department of the Army, 98 M.S.P.R. 530, ¶ 9 (2005). The agency bears the
      burden to prove its compliance with a Board order. An agency’s assertions of
      compliance must include a clear explanation of its compliance actions supported
      by documentary evidence. Vaughan v. Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R.
      319, ¶ 5 (2011). The appellant may rebut the agency’s evidence of compliance by
      making “specific,     nonconclusory, and supported assertions of continued
      noncompliance.” Brown v. Office of Personnel Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 325,
      ¶ 5 (2010).
¶19         The agency’s outstanding compliance issues were its obligations to:
      (1) provide a narrative explanation of its back pay calculations; (2) explain the
      appellant’s step increase date; (3) demonstrate that it remitted unemployment
      compensation to the State of Nevada; and (4) provide the appropriate amount of
      retirement service credit to the appellant. The agency’s combined submissions
      show that the agency has now reached full compliance on all of these issues. The
      agency has provided a sufficient narrative explaining all of its back pay
      calculations. CRF, Tab 4 at 6-39. The agency also satisfactorily explained how it
      determined the appellant’s step increase for the back pay period, including an
      explanation of how the appellant’s non-pay status affected the calculation of his
      step increase date. CRF, Tab 17 at 4-35, Tab 26 at 4-15, Tab 29 at 4-67. The
      agency further provided sufficient evidence that it remitted appropriate payment
      to the State of Nevada for the unemployment compensation withheld from the
      appellant’s back pay.    CRF, Tab 13 at 4, 6-8.       Finally, the agency provided
      satisfactory evidence showing that it credited the appropriate amount of
      retirement service to the appellant for the back pay period, along with a narrative
      explanation of how it arrived at that amount. CRF, Tab 4 at 46.
                                                                                           9

¶20         We have considered the appellant’s objections to the agency’s pleadings,
      but do not find any of the appellant’s arguments to be meritorious. As stated
      above, each of the arguments appear to only constitute challenges to the findings
      of the compliance initial decision. Because these arguments were either already
      considered and rejected by the Board in its December 21, 2016 Order, or were
      available to the appellant but not raised in his petition for rev iew, they will not be
      considered again here. Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268,
      271 (1980). As to the appellant’s other argument regarding non-pay status and its
      effect on his step increase date, the agency’s submissions demonstrate that the
      agency correctly calculated the step increase date.        Specifically, the agency’s
      August 16, 2018 submission explains that, while the appellant may have been in
      varying types of non-pay status during the time periods in question, each type of
      non-pay status had the same effect of delaying the appellant’s step increase date
      by the amount of time spent in non-pay status. CRF, Tab 29 at 4-9, 15, 18-19.
¶21         Finally, with respect to the appellant’s July 6, 2021 motion for leave in
      MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-11-0065-C-1, the documents submitted all relate to
      the appellant’s 2015 removal, which, as noted in the Board’s December 21, 2016
      Order, is not before the Board in the present matter. 2
¶22         Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the Board finds the agency in
      compliance and dismisses the petition for enforcement. This is the final decision
      of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this compliance proceeding. T itle 5 of
      the   Code    of     Federal   Regulations,   section     1201.183(c)(1)   (5   C.F.R.
      § 1201.183(c)(1)).

      2
       The appellant filed a separate appeal of his removal in MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-15-
      0515-I-1. On December 2, 2016, the Board issued a final decision dismissing the
      appellant’s removal appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Shu v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
      Docket No. SF-0353-15-0515-I-1 Final Order (Dec. 2, 2016). That decision was
      affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 12,
      2017. Shu v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 689 Fed. Appx. 971, 974 (Fed. Cir.
      2017).
                                                                                       10

                           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 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:

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.
                                                                                    11

                             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
                                                                                12

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
                                                                                     13

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 a ny 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.
                                                                           14

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.