Court Opinion

ID: 9954521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 16:00:33.315652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:55.190585
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

VERNA SPOTTED WOOD,                             DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DE-0351-18-0378-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND                        DATE: March 25, 2024
  HUMAN SERVICES,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Verna Spotted Wood , Sergeant Bluff, Iowa, pro se.

      Carol Liang , Denver, Colorado, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her appeal as withdrawn. 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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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).

                                 BACKGROUND
      Effective July 27, 2018, the agency separated the appellant from service
due to a reduction in force (RIF). Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 6. On
August 6, 2018, the appellant filed a Board appeal challenging her separation and
she requested a hearing.    Id. at 2.   On her Board appeal form, the appellant
alleged that the agency committed a prohibited personnel practice (PPP) by its
“refusal to compete for openings.” Id. at 3.
      The administrative judge issued an order directing the appellant to identify
which aspects of the RIF she was challenging and what PPP the agency allegedly
committed. IAF, Tab 4. The appellant did not respond. The administrative judge
then issued an order informing the appellant that, if she wanted to withdraw her
appeal, she should file a submission clearly stating so as soon as possible. IAF,
Tab 11. The administrative judge explained that, if the appellant’s withdrawal
appeared to be voluntary, he would dismiss her appeal as withdrawn with
prejudice. Id.
      The appellant then filed a submission withdrawing her Board appeal. IAF,
Tab 12.   The administrative judge found that the appellant’s withdrawal was
                                                                                    3

knowing and voluntary, and he issued an initial decision dated August 24, 2018,
that dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. IAF, Tab 13, Initial Decision (ID).
      In her timely petition for review, the appellant asserts that she has evidence
pertaining to her PPP claim that was not available during the proceedings below.
Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3-4. With her petition, the appellant
submits an August 31, 2018 letter from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)
notifying her of its decision to terminate its inquiry into her complaint 2 alleging
that agency officials discriminated against her based on her age in conducting the
RIF. Id. at 6-7. The agency has filed a response in opposition to the petition for
review. PFR File, Tab 3.

                                    ANALYSIS
The administrative judge properly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn,
      An appellant’s withdrawal of an appeal is an act of finality that has the
effect of removing the matter from the Board’s jurisdiction.        Lincoln v. U.S.
Postal Service, 113 M.S.P.R. 486, ¶ 7 (2010). A voluntary withdrawal must be
clear, decisive, and unequivocal.    Id. The appellant made such a withdrawal,
explicitly stating in writing her intent to withdraw her appeal. IAF, Tab 12. We
therefore find that the administrative judge did not err in dismissing the appeal as
withdrawn. Lincoln, 113 M.S.P.R. 486, ¶¶ 7-8.

The appellant has not shown unusual circumstances warranting the reinstatement
of her appeal.
      Absent unusual circumstances, such as misinformation or new and material
evidence, the Board will not reinstate an appeal once it has been withdrawn.
Lincoln, 113 M.S.P.R. 486, ¶ 9. The appellant has not alleged that she withdrew
her appeal based on misinformation. See generally PFR File, Tab 1.
      The evidence the appellant submits with her petition for review, OSC’s
August 31, 2018 closeout letter, PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-7, is new because it was
2
 In her petition for review, the appellant indicates that she filed her OSC complaint
while her appeal was pending before the administrative judge. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3.
                                                                                      4

unavailable before the record closed below. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service,
3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980). It is not material, however, because the appellant
has made no showing that OSC’s decision to terminate its inquiry into her age
discrimination claim would warrant an outcome different from that of the initial
decision.   See Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980)
(holding that the Board 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). Although the appellant could have raised her
age discrimination claim as an affirmative defense in an otherwise appealable
action appeal, she chose to withdraw that appeal and pursue her discrimination
claim with OSC instead. OSC’s decision to terminate its inquiry into that claim
has no bearing on the voluntariness of her withdrawal.                 Therefore, the
circumstances in this appeal do not provide a basis on which to reinstate the
appeal.

                         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
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.

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.
                                                                                                 5

         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
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
                                                                                  6

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
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
                                                                                      7

      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
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
petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).

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.
                                                                                  8

      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.
      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.