Court Opinion

ID: 9373289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:58.513443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.699799
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ARTHUR BLACK,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          AT-3443-17-0480-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: October 26, 2022
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Arthur Black, Fresno, California, pro se.

           Mark Manta, Esquire, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his nonselection appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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).
¶2        On petition for review, the appellant repeats his argument that he was not
     allowed to apply for a position, which he identifies for the first time as postal
     inspector, due to race and age discrimination. The appellant also reiterates his
     general reference to a previous Board appeal, and he seeks to introduce new
     evidence regarding his nonselection. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The
     appellant also seeks to submit new evidence on review, namely “emails from the
     agency that said [he] was not allowed to apply for the position of postal inspector
     because [he] was not competitive or fulfilled requirements .” Id. at 3. He argues
     that he did not submit this evidence into the record below because “the agency
     lied and refused to reply to inquiry.” Id. at 3-4. He actually did not submit the
     purported new evidence with his petition for review . In any event, we would not
     have considered the evidence because the appellant has failed to show that the
     emails, for which he provides little information, are new or material or
     demonstrate how the agency’s “lies” prevented him from submitting them into the
     record below. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980)
     (stating that, under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will not consider evidence
     submitted for the first time on review absent a showing that it was unavailable
                                                                                          3

     before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence). Moreover, the
     Board generally will not grant a petition for review based on “new” evidence
     absent a showing that it is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different
     from that of the initial decision. Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R.
     345, 349 (1980). The appellant has provided no argument or facts describing how
     the emails would alter the dispositive jurisdictional finding in the initial decision.
¶3         The appellant asserts that he was eligible to apply for the postal inspector
     position based on his qualifications and status as a disabled veteran. PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 3-4.       However, he has not alleged any facts that might implicate
     jurisdiction pursuant to the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 or
     the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
     (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335).          Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 1; PFR File, Tab 1. Instead, he argues that his nonselection was the result of
     race and age discrimination. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3-4. The Board lacks jurisdiction
     over such discrimination claims absent an otherwise appealable action . See Wren
     v. Department of the Army, 2 M.S.P.R. 1, 2 (1980), aff’d, 681 F.2d 867, 871-73
     (D.C. Cir. 1982).
¶4         On review, the appellant asserts that he was “allowed to apply” for a
     position 4 years after he filed a previous Board appeal, and he seeks Board
     approval now to apply for the unspecified position in the present appeal. PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 5. In his initial appeal, the appellant had alleged that the agency’s
     denial of his “opportunity to apply for employment” was in part “motivated by
     retaliation for previous [Board] activity for the same offense.” IAF, Tab 1 at 5.
     The administrative judge noted this argument in the initial decision but did not
     address it in his jurisdictional determination. IAF, Tab 5, Initial Decision at 1-2.
     Board records show that the appellant filed a prior appeal in October 2012
     alleging that he had been denied the opportunity to apply for a postal inspector
     position because of his age.       Black v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
     No. SF-3330-13-0129-I-1, Initial Decision (Jan. 14, 2013).          That appeal was
                                                                                           4

     dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant, and nothing in the prior appeal record
     impacts the jurisdictional determination in the present appeal. Id.
¶5         Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and affirm the initial decision.

                              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 carefull y 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).

     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

      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
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 th is 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
                                                                                  6

discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, o r 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

      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
                                                                                       7

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 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

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 b y 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 c ompetent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                             8

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.