Court Opinion

ID: 9373648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:28.932829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.611644
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     VICHAEL E. MCCORKLE,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        SF-0752-15-0828-X-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: June 9, 2022
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Hartley D. Alley, Esquire, San Antonio, Texas, for the appellant.

           Catherine V. Meek and Philip R. Hsiao, Long Beach, California, for the
             agency.

           Christoph Riddle, San Francisco, California, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         In a July 13, 2016 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge
     found the agency in noncompliance with a January 27, 2016 settlement

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     agreement, which the Board had accepted into the record for purposes of
     enforcement in a February 8, 2016 initial decision.      McCorkle v. U.S. Postal
     Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-15-0828-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 15,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID); McCorkle v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
     Docket No. SF-0752-15-0828-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 68, Tab 71,
     Initial Decision (ID).
¶2         For the reasons discussed below, we find the agency in compliance and
     DISMISS the petition for enforcement.

        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶3         During the pendency of the appellant’s underlying appeal, the parties
     executed a written settlement agreement.      IAF, Tab 68.    The agreement was
     entered into the record for enforcement purposes, and the case was dismissed as
     settled. ID at 1-2. The appellant subsequently filed a petition for enforcement
     claiming that the agency breached the settlement agreement.       CF, Tab 1.    On
     July 13, 2016, the administrative judge issued the compliance initial decision
     granting the petition for enforcement in part. CID at 8-9.
¶4         In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge found that the
     agency had not taken all actions required to be in full compliance with the
     settlement agreement. CID at 2-9. Specifically, the administrative judge found
     that the agency had canceled or “released” only part of the debt owed by the
     appellant, rather than the entire debt, as requir ed by the settlement agreement.
     CID at 3-8. Accordingly, the administrative judge ordered the agency to provide
     evidence that it released the debt owed by the appellant as reflected in the
     December 21, 2015 statement attached to the settlement as Exhibit A for the
     remaining amount of $2,686.24, as well as any finance charges associated with
     that amount. CID at 9.
¶5         The compliance initial decision informed the agency that, if it decided to
     take the actions required by the decision, it must submit to the Clerk of the Board
                                                                                     3

     a statement that it had taken the actions identified in the compliance initial
     decision, along with evidence establishing that it had taken those actions. Id.
     The compliance initial decision also informed the parties that they could file a
     petition for review if they disagreed with the compliance initial decision. CID
     at 10-15. Neither party filed a petition for review.
¶6         On September 7, 2016, the agency submitted a statement of compliance
     with the administrative judge’s order and proof that it had canceled the $2,686.24
     debt in its entirety. McCorkle v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-
     15-0828-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 2.        The appellant filed a
     response on October 10, 2016, stating that he “is satisfied that the agency has
     complied” with the administrative judge’s order. CRF, Tab 4 at 4.

                                         ANALYSIS
¶7         A settlement agreement is a contract, and the            appellant, as the
     non-breaching party, bears the burden to prove “material noncompliance” with a
     term of the contract. Lutz v. U.S. Postal Service, 485 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
     2007).    The agency must produce relevant and material evidence of its
     compliance with the agreement.        Haefele v. Department of the Air Force,
     108 M.S.P.R. 630, ¶ 7 (2008).
¶8         We find that the agency has now submitted sufficient evidence to establish
     its compliance with the Board’s order. As discussed above, the agency submitted
     evidence indicating that it canceled the appellant’s prior debt of $2,686.24. CRF,
     Tab 2. The appellant agrees. CRF, Tab 4.
¶9         In light of the agency’s evidence of compliance, we find the agency in
     compliance and dismiss the petition for enforcement. This is the final decision of
     the Merit Systems Protection Board in this compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the
     Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).
                                                                                      4

                 NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                       YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                      ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
      You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at title 5 of
the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
the initial decision on your appeal.

                         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

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

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 par ticular
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
                                                                                  6

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
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
                                                                                      7

      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. 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 Appeal s for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:

3
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expir ed 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 App eals
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

                             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 t he 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.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at the ir
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.