Court Opinion

ID: 9554809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 21:00:22.605555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:40.260545
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MAY DUONG,                                       DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                   PH-1221-18-0047-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,                      DATE: August 9, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           May Duong, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pro se.

           Ariya McGrew, Esquire, New York, New York, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                        FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed for lack of jurisdiction her individual right of action (IRA) appeal
     regarding her 5-day suspension. 2 On petition for review, the appellant argues 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
      The appellant filed an earlier adverse action appeal of her 5 -day suspension, which we
     dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in a separate Final Order. Duong v. Department of the
     Treasury, MSPB Docket No. PH-752S-17-0143-I-1, Final Order (June 22, 2023).
                                                                                              2

     she exhausted her administrative remedies with the Office of Spe cial Counsel
     (OSC) and made protected whistleblowing disclosures.               Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5-16. 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 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. 3
     Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
     supplement the administrative judge’s analysis that the appellant failed to make a
     nonfrivolous allegation of a protected disclosure, we AFFIRM the initial
     decision. 4
¶2         On review, the appellant does not provide any supporting details about her
     disclosure of the “bedbug bite issue” to the Equal Employment Opportunity
     Commission, her union, or in her workers’ compensation claim. PFR File, Tab 1

     3
       The appellant provided over 200 pages of documents with her petition for review.
     PFR File, Tab 1 at 17-226. We have not considered these documents on review as all of
     them were in the record below, in the record of her prior Board appeal regarding her
     5-day suspension, available to her prior to the close of record, and/or are not material to
     the dispositive issue of the Board’s jurisdiction over this IRA appeal. See Russo v.
     Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980); Meier v. Department of the
     Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980); Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211,
     214 (1980); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d).
     4
       We have reviewed the relevant legislation amending the whistleblower protection
     statutory scheme enacted during the pendency of this appeal and have concluded that it
     does not affect the outcome of the appeal.
                                                                                         3

     at 8; Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 11-12, Tab 5 at 2, 4, 7, 17, 20, 38-39, 48.
     The administrative judge appears to have construed the appellant’s disclosure as
     relating to the agency’s denial of her eligibility for workers’ compensation
     benefits after allegedly suffering a bed bug bite, but there is nothing in the record
     to suggest that the appellant presented this disclosure in her OSC complaint. IAF,
     Tab 9, Initial Decision (ID) at 7-8 (citing IAF, Tab 5 at 2). Nevertheless, even
     assuming that such a disclosure was exhausted before OSC, see Mason v.
     Department of Homeland Security, 116 M.S.P.R. 135, ¶ 8 (2011), we agree with
     the administrative judge’s ultimate finding that the appellant failed to make a
     nonfrivolous allegation of a protected whistleblowing disclosure, ID at 7-9. We
     modify the initial decision to supplement the administrative judge’s analysis to
     find that the appellant’s vague and conclusory assertions about bed bugs or bed
     bug bites are insufficient to establish IRA appeal jurisdiction.          See El v.
     Department of Commerce, 123 M.S.P.R. 76, ¶¶ 7-8 (2015), aff’d, 663 F. App’x
     921 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mc Corcle v. Department of Agriculture, 98 M.S.P.R. 363,
     ¶ 21 (2005) (requiring an appellant to provide more than vague and conclusory
     allegations of wrongdoing by agency officials). The appellant identifies nothing
     on review that would help to explain her disclosures or otherwise indicate a
     reasonable belief that she disclosed information of the kind protected by 5 U.S.C.
     § 2302(b)(8).
¶3         The appellant’s other arguments on review—including alleged factual errors
     in the agency’s motion to dismiss, the administrative judge’s allegedly erroneous
     finding that no record evidence demonstrated any actual bed bug bite injury, and
     the merits of her 5-day suspension—do not provide any basis to disturb the initial
     decision because they do not relate to the dispositive issue of the Board’s
     jurisdiction. See, e.g., PFR File, Tab 1 at 7, 11; see also Sapla v. Department of
     the Navy, 118 M.S.P.R. 551, ¶ 7 (2012) (finding that the appellant’s arguments on
     review regarding the merits of the agency’s action were not relevant to whether
     the Board had jurisdiction over her appeal).      To the extent that the appellant
                                                                                          4

belatedly asserts that the agency committed harmful error by issuing the 5 -day
suspension in August 2016, PFR File, Tab 1 at 14, the Board may not consider
such a claim in the context of an IRA appeal, Salerno v. Department of the
Interior, 123 M.S.P.R. 230, ¶ 15 (2016). 5

                          NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
       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 a nd
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

5
   As to the appellant’s putative claim of reprisal for filing a grievance, the
administrative judge appears to have relied on the agency's evidence in finding that the
appellant did not clearly show she filed a grievance. ID at 8. After the issuance of the
initial decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that the
Board may not deny jurisdiction in an IRA appeal by crediting the agency’s
interpretation of the evidence as to whether the appellant nonfriv olously alleged a
protected disclosure or activity. Hessami v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 979 F.3d
1362, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2020). However, the administrative judge alternatively found
that, even if the appellant had filed a grievance, she did not nonfrivolously allege that
such activity was protected under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i). ID at 8; see Young v.
Merit Systems Protection Board, 961 F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Accordingly,
any error in the administrative judge’s initial finding was harmless. Panter v.
Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (explaining that an
adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis
for reversal of an initial decision).
6
  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

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:
                              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 att orney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
                                                                                 6

      (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
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:
                                                                                      7

                            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
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. 7   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).

7
   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

      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 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.