Court Opinion

ID: 9929228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 23:01:34.840954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:17.411211
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

BRADLEY E. GREEN,                                DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                         NY-0752-18-0034-I-1

               v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                    DATE: January 31, 2024
              Agency.

          THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

         Nolen Dean Boyer , Esquire, New Hyde Park, New York, for the appellant.

         Rachel Demarest Gold , Esquire, Brooklyn, New York, for the appellant.

         Ingrid Merritt , Windsor, Connecticut, for the agency.

                                       BEFORE

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

                                   FINAL ORDER

         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his appeal as untimely filed without a showing of good cause for the
delay.     Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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.
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).
      On petition for review, the appellant does not challenge the administrative
judge’s finding that the appeal was untimely filed. Instead, he argues that the
administrative judge erred when she concluded that his own negligence caused
him to miss the filing deadline and disregarded his argument that he was
experiencing technical difficulties on the Board’s electronic filing system
(e-Appeal Online) during the filing period. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1
at 1-6. He asserts that a malfunction on e-Appeal Online prevented him from
completing the appeal and that the site was not operational on or around
November 24, 2017.      Id. at 3-5, 7-8. The Board’s records show that, after he
initiated the appeal on October 20, 2017, the appellant did not access his account
until November 23, 2017—the only time he did so within the filing period. No
outage or malfunction occurred on e-Appeal Online on or around November 24,
2017, as the appellant claimed. Our technical staff has advised that e-Appeal
Online was operational throughout the filing period, except for 2 -hour windows
on November 4 and November 7, 2017. The brief down-time on November 4 and
November 7 did not adversely affect the appellant or his counsel because they did
not attempt to access e-Appeal Online on those days.
                                                                                3

      The appellant further argues that the administrative judge incorrectly
analyzed the criteria that the Board considers in determining whether he has
shown good cause to excuse his untimely filing. PFR File, Tab 1 at 7-11; see
Hairston v. Department of Defense, 119 M.S.P.R. 162, ¶ 17 (2013), modified on
other grounds by Buelna v. Department of Homeland Security , 121 M.S.P.R. 262,
¶ 18 n.7 (2014); Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184
(1980).   He opines that he has exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence
through his multiple attempts to submit the appeal, in spite of technical
difficulties, on or around the filing deadline. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2-11. We find
that the appellant has not made the requisite showing under the particular
circumstances of the case. See Alonzo, 4 M.S.P.R. at 184. As discussed above,
the Board’s records show that e-Appeal Online was operational during the single
occasion the appellant attempted to submit his appeal within the filing period.
Even if we credit his assertion that technical difficulties on e -Appeal Online
prevented him from timely submitting his appeal, the Board’s records show, and
the appellant does not dispute, that he failed to request technical assistance to
resolve any issues or pursue alternate means to submit his appeal (e.g., fax or
mail) before the filing deadline on November 27, 2017.       Initial Appeal File,
Tab 10 at 5.
      Regarding any assertions he made below that were addressed by the
administrative judge, we agree that the appellant did not demonstrate good cause
to excuse the untimely filing of his appeal. We decline to consider any argument
or evidence that he submits on the first time for review because he has failed to
show that it was unavailable, despite his due diligence, when the record closed.
See Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980);
Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980); 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.115(d).
                                                                                         4

                           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.
                                                                                    5

                             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
                                                                                  6

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
                                                                                      7

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.
                                                                        8

      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.