Court Opinion

ID: 9398771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 07:00:28.466205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.272497
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DAVID J. BAKER,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        SF-0752-17-0150-I-1

             v.

SOCIAL SECURITY                                 DATE: May 30, 2023
  ADMINISTRATION,
              Agency.

           THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Gary M. Gilbert, Esquire, and Renn C. Fowler, Esquire, Silver Spring,
        Maryland, for the appellant.

      Ann L. Maley, Esquire, and Chantal Jenkins, San Francisco, California, for
        the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                          Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                           Raymond A. Limon, Member
                           Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
  Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                         2

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his removal appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On petition for review, the
     appellant argues that the administrative judge incorrectly dismissed the appeal
     because she failed to provide him with notice of his jurisdictional burden.
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 7-9.             He also argues that the
     administrative judge erred in failing to address the timeliness of his appeal and
     that the agency violated his due process rights when it impermissibly denied his
     right to a post-deprivation hearing. Id. at 9-16. 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 dur ing 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 availab le 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         The appellant claims that, because the administrative judge failed to provide
     him with notice of his jurisdictional burden, the dismissal of his appeal must be
     vacated.   PFR File, Tab 1 at 8.       Although the appellant is correct that the
     administrative judge did not provide him jurisdictional notice prior to the
     issuance of the initial decision, the agency’s motion to dismiss and the init ial
     decision itself accurately set forth his burden to prove jurisdiction. Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 9 at 15, Tab 26, Initial Decision (ID) at 3. Accordingly, we find
                                                                                              3

     that the agency’s motion to dismiss and the initial decision cured any lack of
     notice. See Harris v. U.S. Postal Service, 112 M.S.P.R. 186, ¶ 9 (2009) (finding
     that an administrative judge’s failure to provide proper jurisdictional notice may
     be cured by the agency’s pleadings or the initial decision). Moreover, we agree
     with the administrative judge’s conclusion that the Board lacks jurisdiction over
     this appeal because the appellant, after receiving sufficient notice of his appeal
     rights, made a binding election to grieve his removal under 5 U.S.C.
     § 7121(e)(1). 3 ID at 4-5; see Kirkwood v. Department of Education, 99 M.S.P.R.
     437, ¶ 15 (2005) (explaining that an election to file a grievance is effective, and
     deprives the Board of jurisdiction over the grieved action, if the emp loyee
     receives adequate notice of her election rights and timely files her grievance ).
¶3         Most of the appellant’s arguments on review pertain to the timeliness of his
     Board appeal. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-15. However, because the administrative
     judge correctly found that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, there is no
     need to reach the timeliness issue.           See Fletcher v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 118 M.S.P.R. 632, ¶ 10 n.2 (2012).              Further, in the absence of
     Board jurisdiction, the Board lacks the authority to address the appellant’s claim
     that the agency violated his due process rights when it impermissibly denied his

     3
       To the extent that the appellant argues that his election to proceed under the
     negotiated grievance procedure was not binding because the notice of appeal rights
     contained in his removal decision was insufficient, we find his argument unpersuasive.
     Although the appellant is correct that the appeal rights provided by the agency lacked
     the specific notice, as required by the regulations in place at the time of his removal,
     that he had a right to request Board review of a final grievance decision , we find that it
     provides no basis to nullify his otherwise valid election to pursue a grievance through
     the negotiated grievance procedure. IAF, Tab 19 at 26-27; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.21(d)(3)
     (2007). Specifically, because the only notice that was lacking from his appeal rights
     merely provided an additional layer of review in certain circumstances to the process he
     ultimately chose, we find that his election was not prejudiced in any way. Further, as
     the administrative judge properly explained, that layer of review is not available to the
     appellant here because no final grievance decision exists. ID at 5.
                                                                                       4

right to a post-deprivation hearing.       See Rivera v. Department of Homeland
Security, 116 M.S.P.R. 429, ¶ 16 (2011). 4

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      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

4
  The appellant attaches several documents to his petition for revi ew. PFR File, Tab 1
at 18-61. These documents, however, are all contained in the record below. IAF,
Tab 19 at 18-61. As such, the Board need not consider them. Meier v. Department of
the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980) (holding that evidence that is already a part of
the record is not new).
5
  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

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
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
                                                                                  6

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

      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
                                                                                      7

      (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. 6   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.

6
   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 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:                                    /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.