Court Opinion

ID: 9373740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:03.222861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.657659
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DONNA WELLINGTON,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          AT-0714-19-0109-X-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: April 27, 2022
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Lateefah S. Williams, Esquire, Alexandria, Virginia, for the appellant.

           Lucille P. Smith, Esquire, Columbia, South Carolina, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         In an April 30, 2020 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge
     found the agency in partial noncompliance with the Board’s May 13, 2019 final
     decision reversing the appellant’s removal and ordering the agency to
     retroactively restore her with back pay and benefits. Wellington v. Department of

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. AT-0714-19-0109-I-1, Initial Appeal File,
     Tab 54, Initial Decision; Wellington v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB
     Docket No. AT-0714-19-0109-C-1, Compliance File, Tab 6, Compliance Initial
     Decision (CID).     For the reasons discussed below, we find the agency in
     compliance and DISMISS the appellant’s petition for enforcement.

        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2        In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge found the
     agency in partial noncompliance with the Board’s final order to the extent it had
     failed to pay the appellant back pay with interest, restore her leave, and refund to
     her health insurance premiums and debt collection payments that had been
     improperly withheld from her paycheck.          CID at 2-3.       Accordingly, the
     administrative judge granted the appellant’s petition for enforcement and ordered
     the agency to: (1) pay the appellant her back pay, with interest; (2) restore the
     appellant’s leave; (3) cease the debt collection from the appellant’s pay based
     upon the agency’s erroneous determination that the appellant was absent without
     leave (AWOL); (4) refund to the appellant all money withheld from her paycheck
     based upon the erroneous AWOL/debt determination; and (5) withhold health
     insurance premiums during the back pay period in accordance with Office of
     Personnel Management (OPM) regulations. CID at 3-4.
¶3        In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge informed the
     agency that, if it decided to take the ordered actions, it must submit to the Clerk
     of the Board a narrative statement and evidence establishing compliance. CID
     at 4. 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 5-6; see 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.114(e), 1201.183(a)(6)(ii).      Neither party filed a
     petition for review and, on June 5, 2020, the agency submitted a statement to the
     Board regarding its efforts to comply with the actions identified in the
     compliance initial decision. Wellington v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB
                                                                                         3

     Docket No. AT-0714-19-0109-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1.
     Accordingly, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c), the appellant’s petition for
     enforcement has been referred to the Board for a final decision on issues of
     compliance.
¶4         In its June 5, 2020 compliance submission, the agency stated that it had
     submitted to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) all of the
     required documentation that DFAS needed in order to take the actions identified
     in the compliance initial decision.    CRF, Tab 1.      However, according to the
     agency, DFAS had not yet taken these actions due to a backlog. Id.
¶5         In a supplemental submission filed on September 28, 2021, the agency
     informed the Board that it had complied with the Board’s final order by paying
     the appellant her backpay with interest; restoring her leave; cancelling all
     erroneous debts assessed to her; and ensuring that her health insurance premiums
     were withheld in accordance with OPM’s regulations. CRF, Tab 3. As evidence
     of its compliance, the agency provided a declaration from the Civilian Payroll and
     Agency Cashier Supervisor who performed a review of the Earning and Leave
     Statement data and Audit documentation prepared by DFAS that pertained to
     appellant’s Master Civilian Payroll account.        Id. at 9-12.   Attached to this
     declaration were copies of two of the appellant’s pay statements for pay periods
     ending June 20, 2020, and July 4, 2020, showing the restoration of 64 hours of
     annual leave and 55 hours of sick leave; payment of back pay for 480 hours
     ($14,713.16) plus interest ($971.82); and a refund of $1,121.46 for the health
     insurance premiums that had been improperly deducted from her paychecks. Id.
     at 13-16. Also attached to this declaration were several “Debt Case” screen shots
     showing that each of the three erroneous debt collections assessed to appellant
     had been reduced to a zero balance. Id. at 17-25.
                                         ANALYSIS
¶6         When the Board finds a personnel action unwarranted or not sustainable, it
     orders that the appellant be placed, as nearly as possible, in the situation he would
                                                                                      4

     have been in had the wrongful personnel action not occurred.             House v.
     Department of the Army, 98 M.S.P.R. 530, ¶ 9 (2005). The agency bears the
     burden to prove its compliance with a Board order. An agency’s assertions of
     compliance must include a clear explanation of its compliance actions supported
     by documentary evidence. Vaughan v. Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R.
     319, ¶ 5 (2011). The appellant may rebut the agency’s evidence of compliance by
     making “specific, nonconclusory, and supported assertions of continued
     noncompliance.” Brown v. Office of Personnel Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 325, ¶
     5 (2010).
¶7        Here, the agency has demonstrated that it has paid the appellant back pay
     for 480 hours plus interest, restored to her 64 hours of annual leave and 55 hours
     of sick leave, issued her a refund of $1,121.46 for improper withholdings of
     health insurance premiums, and has ceased the improper debt collection from
     appellant’s pay.   The appellant has not responded to either of the agency’s
     compliance submissions, despite being notified of her opportunity to do so,
     including having been cautioned that the Board may assume she is satisfied and
     dismiss her petition for enforcement if she did not respond.         CRF, Tab 2.
     Accordingly, we assume that the appellant is satisfied with the agency’s
     compliance. See Baumgartner v. Department of Housing & Urban Development ,
     111 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 9 (2009).
¶8        In light of the foregoing, we find that the agency is now in compliance and
     dismiss the appellant’s 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)).
                                                                                         5

                           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 bel ow 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).
      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:

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.
                                                                                    6

                             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 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
                                                                                  7

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
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
                                                                                      8

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 Cir cuit 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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

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.
                                                                        9

      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.