Court Opinion

ID: 9963932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 16:01:02.333648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:05.119707
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     LANCE MCDERMOTT,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          SF-0752-13-0633-C-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: April 25, 2024
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Lance McDermott , Seattle, Washington, pro se.

           Steven B. Schwartzman , Esquire, Seattle, Washington, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                           ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the compliance initial
     decision, which granted his petition for enforcement.           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

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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 compliance initial decision, referring the petition for enforcement to
     the Board’s Office of General Counsel for additional processing and issuance of a
     final decision. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2          At the time relevant to the appellant’s initial appeal, he was employed with
     the agency as a maintenance mechanic. McDermott v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
     Docket No. SF-0752-13-0633-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 8 at 38.
     Following his appeal of the agency’s May 30, 2013 decision to place him on
     enforced leave, on April 28, 2015, an administrative judge issued an initial
     decision sustaining the charge and the imposition of enforced leave, denying the
     appellant’s affirmative defenses, and modifying the period of enforced leave.
     IAF, Tab 52, Initial Decision (ID) at 9-26.      Specifically, the initial decision
     ordered the agency to, among other things, commence the enforced leave action
     on June 7, 2013; to restore the annual leave the appellant used during the period
     of May 30 to June 7, 2013; and to pay the appellant for the appropriate amount of
     backpay, if any, with interest, no later than 60 calendar days after the date the
     initial decision became final. ID at 25.
¶3          The appellant filed a petition for review, and, following a remand order
     from    the   Board   concerning    certain   unaddressed   affirmative   defenses,
     McDermott v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-0633-I-1,
                                                                                          3

     Remand Order (Oct. 13, 2015), the administrative judge issued a remand initial
     decision, which denied the affirmative defenses at issue, McDermott v. U.S.
     Postal   Service,   MSPB    Docket    No. SF-0752-13-0633-B-1,       Remand Initial
     Decision (Feb. 12, 2016) (RID); Remand File (RF), Tab 36.               That decision
     became the final decision of the Board on the merits of the appellant’s enforced
     leave appeal after his petition for review was denied as untimely filed without
     good cause shown. McDermott v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-
     0752-13-0633-B-1, Final Order at 1, 5 (Jan. 19, 2023).              Accordingly, the
     administrative judge’s original orders concerning the modified commencement
     date of the enforced leave, the restoration of the appellant’s annual leave, and the
     issuance of any relevant backpay with interest remained intact.
¶4         In the time between the April 28, 2015 initial decision and the time the
     remand initial decision became final, the appellant retired. His last day in a pay
     status with the agency was December 10, 2019. Thus, as of that date, he became
     entitled to the value of his restored leave through the issuance of backpay.
¶5         On January 19, 2023, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement with the
     Board.   McDermott v. U.S. Postal Service, SF-0752-13-0633-C-1, Compliance
     File (CF), Tab 1. In his petition for enforcement, he argued that the agency was
     not in compliance with the administrative judge’s April 28, 2015 orders because it
     did not: (1) pay him 30 days of back pay; (2) restore his 8 days’ worth of annual
     leave; (3) place him on enforced leave consistent with agency and Office of
     Personnel Management (OPM) regulations; or (4) give him written notice that it
     had fully complied with the Board’s order. CF, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 6 at 6-7. After
     developing the record, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial
     decision 2 finding that the agency is obligated to restore and pay the appellant for
     the 8-day annual leave period “as an undisputed amount.”                CF, Tab 18,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID) at 5-7. He considered the agency’s argument

     2
       Because the administrative judge who issued the original and remand initial decisions
     retired, a different administrative judge issued the compliance initial decision.
                                                                                       4

     that the appellant refused to complete the requisite forms necessary for it to
     process the annual leave restoration and backpay amount, but he explained that
     the agency’s compliance was “not contingent” upon the appellant completing the
     relevant forms. CID at 5. He concluded that the agency failed to comply with the
     Board’s order to restore the appellant’s annual leave for the period of May 30 to
     June 7, 2013, and to pay the appellant for the appropriate amount of backpay, if
     any, with interest, as ordered in the Board’s April 28, 2015 initial decision. CID
     at 7.     Accordingly, he granted the appellant’s petition for enforcement.
     Additionally, he again ordered the agency to provide evidence that it complied
     with the order and to provide a narrative explanation of how it arrived at its
     calculations, with an accounting of any deductions and any other adjustments.
     CID at 7-8.
¶6           Consistent with Board practice, and as explained in the Office of the Clerk
     of the Board’s June 8, 2023 order acknowledging the administrative judge’s
     finding of noncompliance, the finding of noncompliance was assigned a new
     docket number, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-0633-X-1.             McDermott v. U.S.
     Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-0633-X-1, Compliance Referral
     File (CRF), Tab 2.         Evidence and argument regarding the finding of
     noncompliance as it relates to the agency’s duty to comply are properly filed
     under that docket number. Arguments regarding the scope of the administrative
     judge’s finding of noncompliance and other arguments raised by the appellant on
     review retain the SF-0752-13-0633-C-1 docket number.
¶7           The appellant has filed a petition for review purporting to challenge the
     compliance initial decision.    McDermott v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
     No. SF-0752-13-0633-C-1, Compliance Petition for Review (CPFR) File, Tab 2.
     He also states that he has new evidence that will demonstrate error in the Board’s
     initial and final decisions regarding the merits of the enforced leave action. Id.
     at 5-8, 19; CPFR File, Tab 3. Additionally, the appellant requests that the Board
     join the instant compliance proceeding with his other appeals concerning his
                                                                                           5

     December 2019 separation from the agency. CPFR File, Tab 2 at 5. The agency
     has responded to the appellant’s petition for review, to which the appellant has
     replied. CPFR File, Tabs 5-6. 3
¶8         Around the same time as the appellant’s petition for review, the agency
     filed a statement with the Board asserting that, by letters dated May 24, 2023, and
     June 7, 2023, it sent the appellant checks representing backpay and interest,
     respectively, and that it is therefore compliant with the Board’s orders. CRF,
     Tab 1 at 4. The instant order concerns only the C-1 docket, which includes the
     compliance initial decision and the appellant’s petition for review thereof.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶9         The agency bears the burden of proving that it has complied with a Board
     order. Mercado v. Office of Personnel Management, 115 M.S.P.R. 65, ¶ 4 (2010).
     Here, the parties do not dispute, and we otherwise agree with the administrative
     judge, that, as of the date of the issuance of the compliance initial decision, the
     agency did not demonstrate that it complied with the Board’s April 28, 2015 order
     to restore the appellant’s annual leave and pay him any relevant backpay with
     interest. Accordingly, we do not disturb that administrative judge’s finding in
     this regard.

     3
       In the agency’s response to the appellant’s petition for review, it asserts that the
     appellant’s filing of a petition for review and a supplemental pleading motioning for
     leave to submit new evidence is improper because it was meant to circumvent the page
     length limitation set forth in a June 9, 2023 notice from the Office of the Clerk of the
     Board and the Board’s regulations. CPFR File, Tab 5. We discern no impropriety in
     the appellant’s filing of a petition for review and motion to file new evidence and find
     those filings to be consistent with the Board’s regulations. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(h)
     (providing that a petition for review is limited to 30 pages or 7500 words, whichever is
     less); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5) (explaining that any pleading other than a petition
     for review, cross petition for review, response to a petition for review, and reply to a
     response to a petition for review, will not be accepted unless the party files a motion
     with and obtains leave form the Clerk of the Board). Regarding the appellant’s motion
     to file new evidence, he has not shown the need for such evidence in this compliance
     proceeding, and, accordingly, his motion is denied. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5).
                                                                                              6

¶10         In his compliance petition for review, the appellant primarily discusses the
      Board’s initial and final decisions concerning the underlying merits of his appeal
      and the agency’s purported improper actions. 4 CPFR, File 2. The Board usually
      will not consider new evidence and argument regarding the merits of a case
      during a compliance proceeding, and we decline to do so here. See, e.g., Senyszyn
      v. Department of the Treasury, 110 M.S.P.R. 437, ¶ 2 n.* (2009)); Henry v.
      Department of Veterans Affairs, 108 M.S.P.R. 458, ¶ 13 (2008).
¶11         To the extent the appellant’s petition for review challenges any aspect of the
      compliance initial decision, his challenges are without merit. For example, the
      appellant appears to assert that the administrative judge did not consider all of his
      allegations of noncompliance, such as his claim that the agency failed to provide
      a statement of compliance as ordered in the April 28, 2015 initial decision on the
      merits. CPFR File, Tab 2 at 5-6. However, the agency could only make such a
      statement if it believed it was in compliance. Given its argument below that the
      appellant refused to complete the requisite forms necessary for the issuance of
      backpay, the agency was presumably aware that it was not in compliance with the
      Board’s order. 5    We find that the compliance initial decision appropriately
      addressed the only order at issue in these proceedings:          the restoration of the
      appellant’s annual leave for the relevant time period and any related backpay with
      interest. The appellant’s petition for review does not provide any basis to disturb
      the compliance initial decision.

      4
       The appellant also discusses his December 2019 separation from the agency, which is
      not at issue in these compliance proceedings. CPFR File, Tab 2. As such, we do not
      address those arguments here.
      5
        In any event, the administrative judge’s failure to make a specific finding regarding
      the agency’s failure to provide a statement of compliance did not prejudice the
      appellant’s substantive rights, as the administrative judge found the agency in
      noncompliance and the noncompliance is being referred to the Board’s Office of
      General Counsel to obtain compliance. Panter v. Department of the Air Force,
      22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (stating that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to
      a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an initial decision).
                                                                                       7

      We deny the appellant’s request to join the instant appeal with other Board
      appeals.
¶12        The appellant renews his request to join the instant compliance matter with
      two other appeals relating to his December 2019 separation from the agency that
      were pending at the time, McDermott v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
      Nos. SF-0752-20-0705-I-1, an involuntary disability retirement appeal, and SF-
      0353-21-0159-I-1, a denial of restoration appeal. CPFR File, Tab 2 at 5. Below,
      the administrative judge denied the appellant’s request as “not appropriate.” CF,
      Tab 15 at 1. We also conclude that joinder is not appropriate here. We have
      since issued final decisions in those other matters.   McDermott v. U.S. Postal
      Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-21-0159-I-1, Final Order (Apr. 17, 2024);
      McDermott v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-20-0705-I-1, Final
      Order (Feb. 29, 2024).    Thus, they are no longer pending before the Board.
      Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s joinder request as moot.

      We refer the administrative judge’s finding of noncompliance to the Board’s
      Office of General Counsel.
¶13        As briefly explained above, following the administrative judge’s May 9,
      2023 compliance initial decision finding the agency not in compliance, the agency
      filed a statement with the Board on June 7, 2023, asserting that it sent the
      appellant checks representing backpay and interest and that it is therefore
      compliant with the Board’s orders. CRF, Tab 1 at 4. With this statement of
      compliance, the agency included copies of the two letters it sent to the appellant
      informing him that it issued him checks for the backpay and interest, photocopies
      of the checks, and a copy of a backpay computation summary report
      demonstrating how the interest was calculated.     Id. at 6-11.   In response, the
      appellant has asserted, among other things, that the agency calculated the back
      pay incorrectly, stating that the agency’s explanation of how it arrived at the
      hours of restored annual leave “is not based on any of the [a]gency’s or OPM’s
      [l]eave [r]estoration regulations or the official record.”   CRF, Tab 3 at 7-8.
                                                                                       8

      Specifically, he asserts he was entitled to 72 hours of restored annual leave, as
      opposed to the 45.5 hours of annual leave restored by the agency. Id.
¶14         An agency’s assertion of compliance must be supported by relevant,
      material, and credible evidence of compliance in the form of documentation or
      affidavits. Cuevas v. U.S. Postal Service, 90 M.S.P.R. 391, ¶ 5 (2001). We have
      reviewed the documents submitted by the agency and are unable to determine
      based on the present record whether the appellant’s backpay and interest award is
      correct and whether the agency is therefore compliant with the Board’s order.
      Notably, the agency’s documentation does not include evidence, such as time and
      attendance records, showing how much annual leave the appellant took between
      May 30 and June 7, 2013, that he was entitled to have restored. Further, neither
      the agency’s statement of compliance, nor its documentation in support thereof,
      provides an explanation of the rate of pay it used to convert the appellant’s
      restored annual leave to a monetary amount.          Accordingly, we refer the
      compliance matter to the Board’s Office of General Counsel for the agency to
      submit additional evidence regarding its compliance.     Given the nature of the
      appellant’s arguments in response to the agency’s statement of compliance,
      sufficient evidence of compliance should include the relevant time and attendance
      records and a narrative explanation or additional documentary evidence of the
      calculation of backpay.    See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(1)(i), (a)(6) (requiring an
      agency to submit evidence of the relevant calculation and requiring that a
      narrative statement explain in detail why the evidence of compliance satisfies the
      requirements of the initial decision).

                                               ORDER
¶15         We ORDER the agency to submit to the Clerk of the Board within 60 days
      of the date of this Order satisfactory evidence of compliance. This evidence shall
      adhere to the requirements set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(6)(i), including
      submission of evidence and a narrative statement of compliance. The agency’s
                                                                                       9

      submission shall demonstrate that it properly calculated the appellant’s backpay
      according to the appropriate amount of restored annual leave and related interest.
      The agency must serve all parties with copies of its submission.
¶16        The agency’s submission should be filed under the docket number assigned
      to the compliance referral matter currently pending with the Board’s Office of
      General Counsel, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-0633-X-1.              All subsequent
      filings should refer to the compliance referral docket number set forth above and
      should be faxed to (202) 653-7130 or mailed to the following address:
                                 Clerk of the Board
                         U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
                                1615 M Street, N.W.
                               Washington, D.C. 20419

      Submissions may also be made by electronic filing at the MSPB’s e-Appeal site
      (http://e-appeal/mspb.gov) in accordance with the Board’s regulation at 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.14.
¶17        The appellant may respond to the agency’s evidence of compliance within
      20 days of the date of service of the agency’s submission.              5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.183(a)(8). If the appellant does not respond to the agency’s evidence of
      compliance, the Board may assume that he is satisfied with the agency’s actions
      and dismiss the petition for enforcement.
¶18        The agency is reminded that, if it fails to provide adequate evidence of
      compliance, the responsible agency official and the agency’s representative may
      be required to appear before the General Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection
      Board to show cause why the Board should not impose sanctions for the agency’s
      noncompliance in this case. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a). The Board’s authority to
      impose sanctions includes the authority to order that the responsible agency
      official “shall not be entitled to receive payment for service as an employee
      during any period that the order has not been complied with.”           5 U.S.C.
      § 1204(e)(2)(A).
                                                                                        10

¶19         This Order does not constitute a final order and therefore is not subject to
      judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). Upon the Board’s final resolution of
      the remaining issues in this petition for enforcement, a final order shall be issued,
      which shall be subject to judicial review.

      FOR THE BOARD:                         ______________________________
                                             Gina K. Grippando
                                             Clerk of the Board
      Washington, D.C.