Court Opinion

ID: 9948505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 16:00:29.68951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:26.271071
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MONIQUE WILLIAMS,                               DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         SF-0752-21-0395-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: March 6, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Crista Kraics , Esquire, Stafford, Virginia, for the appellant.

      Douglas Frison , APO, APO/FPO Pacific, 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 her involuntary resignation 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 erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous
application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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).
      The appellant alleges on review that the administrative judge failed to
properly consider her allegations in her affidavit regarding the union official’s
purported misinformation. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5. However,
the administrative judge primarily relied on the appellant’s affidavit in
determining whether the appellant made a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction.
As the administrative judge noted, the appellant failed to identify any misleading
statements attributable to the agency which led to her resignation. Initial Appeal
File (IAF), Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 8-9. It must be the agency’s improper
action, i.e., the supplying of misinformation, which deprived the appellant of her
choice. Bean v. U.S. Postal Service, 120 M.S.P.R. 397, ¶ 9 (2013). The union
representative was not a representative of the agency, and thus, the union
representative’s misleading statements cannot be attributed to the agency. Green
v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 59, ¶ 9 (2009).                 The
administrative judge properly found that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously
allege that her resignation was involuntary as a result of the union
representative’s statements.   ID at 7-9; see Bean, 120 M.S.P.R. 397, ¶¶ 8-9;
Green, 112 M.S.P.R. 59, ¶ 9.
      The appellant asserts on review that the administrative judge improperly
relied on the agency file in support of her finding of a lack of jurisdiction, thus,
                                                                                    3

depriving her of the opportunity to challenge the evidence showing that the
removal decision came after a lengthy investigation and ample notice of the basis
for the agency’s proposed removal. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. We recognize that the
administrative judge discussed some evidence in the record, despite the question
before her being one of jurisdiction.     After the initial decision was issued, in
Hessami v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 979 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cautioned that, when
evaluating Board jurisdiction, the Board may not deny jurisdiction by crediting
the agency’s interpretation of the evidence.       However, the Board need not
consider the appellant’s allegations “in a vacuum,” and may consider sources
such as “matters incorporated by reference or integral to the claim, items subject
to judicial notice, [and] matters of public record.” Id. at 1369 n.5.
      In her analysis, the administrative judge relied on the evidence in the
agency file to provide factual background information and establish the
chronology of events leading up to the appellant’s removal. The administrative
judge did not weigh the evidence or credit the agency’s interpretation of the
evidence. The appellant did not allege that the timeline was incorrect and, as
noted above, she provided an affidavit describing the circumstances surrounding
her removal which is consistent with the evidence in the agency’s file.         IAF,
Tab 6 at 10. Thus, we discern no error in the administrative judge’s consideration
of this evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether the appellant
made allegations showing that a reasonable employee faced with the same
circumstances would feel coerced into resigning.
      Regarding the appellant’s remaining arguments, we find that they provide
no basis to disturb the initial decision. Thus, we affirm the initial decision, which
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                                                                                      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).

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. 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
                                                                                  6

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

      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 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

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.