Court Opinion

ID: 9393035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 06:00:10.595316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.541875
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MARILYN J. RYAN,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        CH-0752-16-0485-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: May 8, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Stephen T. Fieweger, Esquire, Davenport, Iowa, for the appellant.

           Emily L. Macey, Rock Island, Illinois, 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 her 30-day suspension appeal as settled. 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         As properly described in the initial decision, the appellant filed a Board
     appeal of her 30-day suspension, effective June 22, 2016.        Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 21, Initial Decision (ID) at 1.
¶3         Immediately prior to the start of a hearing held on February 6, 2017, the
     parties reached an oral settlement agreement. IAF, Tab 18, Hearing Compact
     Disc (HCD), Tab 22, Hearing Transcript (HT).              During the hearing, the
     administrative judge described the following terms of the agreement: the length
     of the appellant’s 30-day suspension would be reduced to 14 calendar days; the
     remaining 16 days of her suspension would be held in abeyance for 2 years; if she
     engaged in misconduct during the 2-year period, the 30-day suspension would be
     reactivated and she waived her right to appeal that action; she would receive back
     pay and benefits for the remaining 16 days of her suspension and a refund of
     health and dental insurance premiums paid during that time period, provided she
     submitted payment records; and she would receive up to $1,500 in attorney fees
     upon the submission of a bill showing that the fees were reasonable . HCD; HT
     at 3-4. The administrative judge clarified that the agreement was not a global
     settlement of the appellant’s equal employment opportunity complaint and that
                                                                                        3

     she agreed to withdraw her Board appeal. HCD; HT at 4. The administrative
     judge further represented that the agreement was voluntary, the parties
     understood its terms, and it would be accepted into the record. HCD; HT at 4.
     The administrative judge asked the parties if she accurately covered the terms of
     the agreement and if they had anything to add or correct . HCD; HT at 4. The
     representatives of the appellant and the agency agreed that the administrative
     judge described the terms, and they did not offer an addition or correction. HCD;
     HT at 4. The appellant was present at the hearing. HCD; HT at 4.
¶4        The administrative judge thereafter issued an initial decision dismissing the
     appeal as settled. ID at 1-2. She found that the Board has jurisdiction over the
     appellant’s timely appeal. ID at 1. She further found that the parties voluntarily
     and freely entered into a settlement agreement, they understood its terms, and it
     was lawful on its face. ID at 1-2. She accepted the agreement into the record for
     enforcement purposes and acknowledged that one of its terms was the appellant’s
     withdrawal of her Board appeal. ID at 2.
¶5        The appellant has filed a petition for review requesting the Board to
     reinstate her appeal and alleging that the settlement agreement was not entered
     into voluntarily nor signed, and that she disagrees with its terms. Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 1. The agency has filed a response asserting that,
     after the hearing, the parties corresponded regarding a written settlement
     agreement but that the appellant has not executed it.       PFR File, Tab 3 at 6.
     However, the agency argues that the oral settlement agreement is valid and that
     reinstatement of the appeal is not warranted.        Id. at 7-8.   The agency has
     submitted, among other things, evidence of the parties’ correspondence and
     unsigned drafts of the written agreement. 2 Id. at 18-49.

     2
       Even assuming these documents are “new” for purposes of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, we
     find that they do not contain information material to the outcome of this appeal. PFR
     File, Tab 3 at 10-49.
                                                                                      4

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6          Generally, an oral settlement agreement is valid and binding on the part ies
     even though the appellant has subsequently declined to sign a written document
     memorializing the terms of the agreement. Schwartz v. Department of Education,
     113 M.S.P.R. 601, ¶ 7 (2010). Even if there is language suggesting that the oral
     agreement subsequently will be reduced to writing, the agreement is still binding
     absent a showing that the parties did not intend to be bou nd until a written
     agreement was signed. Id.
¶7          Here, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal based on the parties’
     oral settlement agreement, ID at 1-2, and the recording of that agreement makes
     clear that they reached a binding settlement agreement, HCD; HT at 3-4; see
     Tiburzi v. Department of Justice, 269 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding
     that the hearing transcript showed that the parties understood that a complete and
     binding agreement had been reached when the administrative judge asked them
     whether the terms entered into the record constituted all the terms of the
     settlement agreement, and the parties answered in the affirmative and agreed that
     the agreement would be enforceable by the Board). The recording contains no
     statement that only a written and signed agreement would be binding on the
     parties. HCD; HT; see Schwartz, 113 M.S.P.R. 601, ¶ 7. Thus, we find that the
     oral settlement agreement was the operative agreement in this case , and therefore,
     the appellant’s dispute on review regarding specific terms of the written
     agreement is immaterial. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1; see Schwartz, 113 M.S.P.R. 601,
     ¶ 7.
¶8          A party may challenge the validity of a settlement agreement if the party
     believes that the agreement is unlawful, involuntary, or the result of fraud or
     mutual mistake.    Schwartz, 113 M.S.P.R. 601, ¶ 8. The party challenging the
     validity of the settlement agreement bears a “heavy burden.” Id. (quoting Asberry
     v. U.S. Postal Service, 692 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1982)).
                                                                                            5

¶9          In her petition for review, the appellant alleges that she did not voluntaril y
      enter into the settlement agreement and that she was not in agreement with its
      terms on the date of the hearing.      PFR File, Tab 1 at 1.       We find that these
      allegations fail to satisfy her heavy burden of establishing that the settlement
      agreement is invalid. See Tiburzi, 269 F.3d at 1355 (finding that the appellant’s
      unsubstantiated allegations of coercion were not sufficient to invalidate the oral
      settlement agreement). The record shows that, during the hearing, the appellant’s
      representative agreed with the administrative judge’s description of the terms of
      the agreement and did not offer an addition or correction when provided an
      opportunity to do so.     HCD; HT at 4; see Pacilli v. Department of Veterans
      Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 526, ¶ 13 (stating that an appellant generally is responsible
      for the errors of her chosen representative), aff’d, 404 F. App’x 466 (Fed. Cir.
      2010). Moreover, the appellant, who was present at the hearing, did not voice her
      objection to the terms of the agreement. HCD; HT at 4.
¶10         To the extent the appellant believes that the agency has breached the terms
      of the oral settlement agreement, she may file a petition for enforcement with the
      Board’s regional office. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a). Accordingly, we find that the
      administrative judge properly dismissed this appeal as settled.

                               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

      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.
                                                                                       6

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:
                              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
                                                                                   7

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
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
                                                                                      8

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 B oard’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

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

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.
                                                                       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:                                  /s/ for
                                        Jennifer Everling
                                        Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.