Court Opinion

ID: 9373744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:04.634492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.040129
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     TONYA EVETTE RHODES,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-0752-12-0316-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: April 26, 2022
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Tonya Evette Rhodes, Seffner, Florida, pro se.

           Kristin Langwell, Esquire, St. Petersburg, Florida, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     reversed the agency’s chapter 75 removal action. For the reasons set forth below,
     the appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good
     cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         Effective February 15, 2012, the agency removed the appellant from her
     position as a GS-12 Veterans Service Representative (Rating) based on the charge
     of false reporting. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7 at 27, 29 -31, 140-47. The
     appellant appealed her removal to the Board. 2 IAF, Tab 1. Following a hearing
     on the matter, the administrative judge issued a March 15, 2013 initial decision
     reversing the agency’s removal action, concluding that the agency had failed to
     prove its charge by preponderant evidence. IAF, Tab 48, Initial Decision (ID)
     at 1-2, 16. The administrative judge also concluded that the appellant had failed
     to prove her affirmative defenses of retaliation for prior protected equal
     employment opportunity (EEO) activity and race discrimination. 3 ID at 13-15.
     She ordered the agency to cancel its removal action and to retroactively restore
     the appellant to her position and to provide her with appropriate back pay. ID
     at 16. The administrative judge notified the appellant that the initial decision
     would become final on April 19, 2013, unless a petition for review was filed by
     that date. ID at 18. The appellant did not file a petition for review of the initial
     decision; however, on July 30, 2013, she filed a petition for enforcement, alleging
     that the agency had failed to comply with the administrative judge’s order as set
     forth in the March 15, 2013 initial decision. Rhodes v. Department of Veterans
     Affairs, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-12-0316-C-1, Compliance File, Tab 1 at 1-3.

     2
       In our review of the record, we determined that IAF, Tab 28, which was subject to an
     in camera review by the administrative judge because of the agency’s concerns
     regarding the Privacy Act, IAF, Tab 27 at 7-8, was inadvertently made part of the
     official record. Because the administrative judge determined that the appellant was not
     entitled to receive the documents contained therein, IAF, Tab 32 at 2, and because the
     documents are not relevant or necessary to the adjudication of this appeal, see 5 U.S.C.
     § 552a(e)(1), we hereby remove IAF, Tab 28 from the record and return the documents
     contained therein to the agency.
     3
        The administrative judge declined to analyze the appellant’s claim of harmful
     procedural error, explaining that the claim had been rendered moot by the agency’s
     failure to prove its charge. ID at 16.
                                                                                       3

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶3        Approximately 8 years later, on March 5, 2021, the appellant submitted to
     the Board a filing that was initially docketed as a second petition for
     enforcement.     Rhodes v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket
     No. AT-0752-12-0316-C-2, Second Compliance File (CF), Tab 1. On March 19,
     2021, the administrative judge dismissed the petition for enforcement. CF, Tab 7,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID) at 1-2. In so doing, she explained that the
     appellant’s filings had raised matters previously addressed in (1) the March 15,
     2013 initial decision regarding the agency’s chapter 75 removal action and (2) the
     compliance proceeding already pending before the Board.                CID at 2.
     Accordingly, she forwarded the matter to the Office of the Clerk of the Board for
     docketing (1) as a petition for review, and (2) for inclusion and consideration in
     the appellant’s compliance proceeding, i.e., Rhodes v. Department of Veterans
     Affairs, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-12-0316-X-1. Id. Here, we construe the
     appellant’s submissions as a petition for review of the administrative judge’s
     March 15, 2013 initial decision.
¶4        In her filings, the appellant asserts that, subsequent to the initial decision,
     she prevailed in an EEO claim against the agency. Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1 at 4, Tab 3 at 3. She also avers that she has continued to experience
     “harassment, disparate treatment, and offensive conduct from the [a]gency.” PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 4. The appellant provides numerous documents, to include medical
     records, email correspondence with agency officials, financial information , and
     documents that were part of the record in her chapter 75 removal appeal, e.g.,
     PFR File, Tab 1 at 17-39, Tab 2 at 10-36.
¶5        Following its receipt of these filings, the Office of the Clerk notified the
     appellant that her petition for review was untimely and explained that she must
     file a motion asking the Board to accept the petition for review as untimely and /or
     to waive the time limit for good cause. PFR File, Tab 4 at 2. In response, the
                                                                                            4

     appellant has filed a motion explaining that she received a favorable EEO
     decision on May 28, 2015, and she provides a copy of the subject decision. PFR
     File, Tab 5 at 4, 6-9. She avers that the EEO decision ordered disciplinary action
     for the same management officials who sought her removal in 2012. Id. at 4-5.
     The appellant also references and provides a medical letter dated February 7,
     2012, wherein a physician indicated that the appellant’s work environment had
     caused her “a significant level of psychological distress” and recommended that
     she be “taken out of work” as of February 3, 2012. 4 Id. at 4-5, 10. Although
     unclear, the appellant ostensibly asserts that she became aware of the May 28,
     2015 EEO decision during the “filing/dismissing of [her] lawsuit for EEO in
     2020.” Id. at 5. The agency has not responded to the appellant’s motion. 5
¶6         A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the issuance of the
     initial decision, or, if the petitioner shows that she received the initial decision
     more than 5 days after the date of the issuance, within 30 days after the date she
     received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). Here, the initial decision
     was issued on March 15, 2013, and sent to the appellant electronically the same
     day. IAF, Tab 49 at 1. The appellant does not allege that she did not receive the
     initial decision within 5 days of its issuance; indeed, she acknowledges that she
     received the same “on or around March 15, 2013.”              PFR File, Tab 5 at 4.
     Accordingly, her petition for review is untimely b y approximately 8 years. See
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e).
¶7         The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition for review only
     upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g).

     4
       The appellant also provides with her motion a September 21, 2010 email indicating
     that she was nominated for the Fall 2010 “Employee of the Quarter H onor Roll.” PFR
     File, Tab 5 at 11.
     5
       Following the submission of her motion, the appellant attempted to submit another
     pleading, which the Office of the Clerk rejected and returned to her because it failed to
     comport with Board regulations. PFR File, Tab 6 at 1-2.
                                                                                           5

     To establish good cause for an untimely filing, the appellant must show that she
     exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances
     of the case. Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980).
     In determining whether there is good cause, the Board considers the length of the
     delay, the reasonableness of the excuse and showing of due diligence, whether the
     appellant is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented evidence of the
     existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her ability to comply
     with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune that similarly shows
     a causal relationship to her inability to file a timely petition.     See Wyeroski v.
     Department of Transportation, 106 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶ 7, aff’d, 253 F. App’x 950
     (Fed. Cir. 2007).
¶8         Here, we find that the appellant has not demonstrated good cause for the
     untimely filing of her petition for review. To this end, her 8-year filing delay is
     significant; indeed, the Board has previously found delays of a much shorter
     duration not minimal. See, e.g., Dean v. U.S. Postal Service, 100 M.S.P.R. 556,
     ¶ 5 (2005) (finding a 6-month delay not minimal); Floyd v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 95 M.S.P.R. 260, ¶ 6 (2003) (finding a 1-month delay not minimal).
     The appellant’s pro se status alone does not excuse this lengthy delay. See May v.
     U.S. Postal Service, 108 M.S.P.R. 557, ¶ 10 (2008) (finding that the appellant’s
     pro se status did not excuse his lengthy 8-year filing delay).
¶9         Moreover, the argument contained in the appellant’s petition for review and
     supplements thereto does not establish good cause for her untimeliness. 6 To this

     6
       We acknowledge that the appellant has provided medical evidence indicating that she
     has experienced periods of decompensation. PFR File, Tab 1 at 18, Tab 5 at 10.
     However, the record reflects that the appellant has nonetheless continually and
     meaningfully participated in the compliance matter pending before the Board
     throughout the 8-year period between the issuance of the March 15, 2013 initial
     decision and the filing of her petition for review. Thus, we find that she has failed to
     demonstrate good cause for her untimely filing on the basis of illness, or mental or
     physical capacity. See Lacy v. Department of the Navy, 78 M.S.P.R. 434, 437 (1998);
     see also Stribling v. Department of Education, 107 M.S.P.R. 166, ¶ 8 (2007).
                                                                                         6

      end, the appellant seemingly argues that two documents warrant review of the
      initial decision, i.e., a 2012 medical record and a 2015 EEO decision. PFR File,
      Tab 5 at 4-5.    The appellant, however, has not shown that her 2012 medical
      record was previously unavailable to her despite her due diligence . See Wilson v.
      General Services Administration, 15 M.S.P.R. 45, 47 (1983) (finding that the
      appellant had not shown good cause for his untimeliness because, among other
      things, he failed to show that the “new” information on which he relied was
      unavailable, despite due diligence, before the record closed). Moreover, although
      the May 28, 2015 EEO decision was issued subsequent to the initial decision, the
      appellant did not file her petition for review until March 202 1, some 5 years later;
      thus, she has failed to show that she acted promptly upon learning of the apparent
      basis of her petition for review.      See Maples v. Defense Logistics Agency,
      31 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1986) (explaining that the appellant was obligated to
      exercise due diligence in pursuing his appeal in a timely manner once he had
      reason to believe that he had a basis to seek review), aff’d, 824 F.2d 980 (Fed.
      Cir. 1987) (Table). To the extent the appellant asserts that she was unaware of
      the 2015 EEO decision until 2020, PFR File, Tab 5 at 5, a different outcome is
      not warranted. Indeed, even assuming that the appellant was somehow unaware
      of the decision in her EEO matter until December 31, 2020, she nonetheless failed
      to file her petition for review until March 2021, at least 3 months after she
      admittedly learned of the same. See Cassidy v. U.S. Postal Service, 65 M.S.P.R.
      86, 89 (1994) (finding that an appellant who delayed filing his petition for review
      for 5 weeks after becoming aware of the alleged grounds for requesting review
      failed to show good cause for his untimely petition).
¶10         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
      the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness
      of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the
      Board regarding the agency’s removal action.
                                                                                          7

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7
      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 case s 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:

7
  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.
                                                                                    8

                             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
                                                                                  9

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).
                                                                                     10

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. 8 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

8
   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.
                                                                           11

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.