Court Opinion

ID: 9373644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:23.875505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.730013
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CARRIE M. CHRISTMAN,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        NY-315H-17-0086-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: June 14, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Harvey P. Sanders, Esquire, Cheektowaga, New York, for the appellant.

           Daniel S. Lacy, North Chicago, Illinois, 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 de cision, which
     dismissed her probationary termination 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 decis ion is

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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
     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
¶2        Effective April 15, 2016, the agency terminated the appellant from her Test
     Coordinator position during her probationary period. Initial Appeal File (I AF),
     Tab 1 at 8. She filed a Board appeal alleging that her termination was due to
     discrimination based on her age, perceived disability, reprisal, and “her political
     claim.”   Id. at 4.   On February 27, 2017, the administrative judge issued an
     acknowledgment order setting forth the law applicable to the question of the
     Board’s jurisdiction and ordered the appellant to file evidence and argument
     showing that her appeal was within the Board’s jurisdiction by March 14, 2017.
     IAF, Tab 2 at 2-5.     The administrative judge also afforded the agency until
     March 24, 2017, to file a response on the jurisdictional issue.      Id. at 5.   The
     appellant did not respond to the administrative judge’s order.       On March 20,
     2017, the agency submitted its response, arguing that the appellant failed to raise
     nonfrivolous allegations of Board jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 4 at 5-7.
¶3        On March 28, 2017, without holding the appellant’s requested hearing, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision, dismissing the appeal for lack of
                                                                                       3

     jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 5, Initial Decision (ID). The administrative judge found
     that the appellant conceded that she was terminated during her probationary
     period and failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation that her termination was due
     to partisan political reasons or marital status discrimination or that her
     termination was based on preappointment reasons and was not effected in
     accordance with the procedural requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 315.805. ID at 4-5.
     In particular, the administrative judge found that the appellant’s bare assertion
     that she was discriminated against on the basis of her “political claim ,” without
     more, failed to amount to a nonfrivolous allegation. ID at 5 n.5.
¶4        On March 29, 2017, one day after the issuance of the initial decision, the
     appellant submitted a response in which she argued that the initial decision was
     prematurely issued and she should have been afforded 10 days to respond to the
     agency’s March 20, 2017 motion to dismiss. IAF, Tab 7. She further argued that
     she was not afforded an opportunity to address her allegation on her appeal form
     that she was terminated based on partisan political reasons and submitted an
     affidavit setting forth facts in support of such a claim.        Id.   Because the
     appellant’s submission was received after the initial decision was issued, the
     administrative judge declined to consider it and informed the appellant that, if she
     was dissatisfied with the initial decision, she could file a petition for review.
     IAF, Tab 8.
¶5        The appellant has filed a petition for review in which she argues that the
     administrative judge erred in failing to consider her response.        Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. She maintains that she should have been afforded
     10 days to respond to the agency’s motion and, thus, the initial decision was
     prematurely issued prior to the deadline for her response. Id. We disagree and
     find that the administrative judge did not err in issuing the initial decision on
     March 28, 2017.      The acknowledgment order afforded the appellant until
     March 14, 2017, to submit evidence and argument establishing Board jurisdiction,
     afforded the agency until March 24, 2017, to file a response on the jurisdictional
                                                                                            4

     issue, and indicated that the final date for receipt of submissions by the parties on
     the jurisdictional issue was March 24, 2017. 2 IAF, Tab 2 at 5. Thus, in light of
     the clear language in the acknowledgment order setting forth the applicable
     deadlines, we find unpersuasive the appellant’s argument that she should have
     had 10 days to respond to the agency’s motion to dismiss.                 Although the
     acknowledgment order also indicated that, unless otherwise specified, a response
     to a motion must be filed within 10 calendar days, here, the jurisdictional
     deadlines were clearly and separately specified. Id. at 5, 7. The appellant, who
     was represented by counsel, simply failed to file a jurisdictional response within
     the required deadline.
¶6         We similarly find unpersuasive the appellant’s argument that the
     administrative judge should have considered her untimely response pursuant to
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.59. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.59(c), once the
     record closes, additional evidence or argument ordinarily will not be accepted
     unless the party submitting it shows that the evidence or argument was not readily
     available before the record closed or it is in rebuttal to new evidence or argument
     submitted by the other party just before the record closed.              The appellant
     contends that her response should have been considered because it was not clear
     that her appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no argument was
     raised in support of dismissal until the agency submitted its response. Id. at 5-6.
¶7         We disagree.       The administrative judge’s order clearly informed the
     appellant that her appeal would be dismissed unless she raised nonfrivolous
     allegations of Board jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 2 at 5. The appellant does not allege
     that the information contained in her untimely March 29, 2017 response
     constitutes new and material evidence that was not readily available before the
     record closed on March 24, 2017. Additionally, we find that her March 29, 2017

     2
      The order also noted that, notwithstanding the close of the record, pursuant to 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.59(c), a party must be allowed to respond to new evidence or argument
     submitted by the other party just before the close of the record. IAF, Tab 2 at 5.
                                                                                           5

     response does not constitute a rebuttal to new or material evidence or argument
     submitted by the agency.      In its response, the agency simply summarized the
     applicable law as set forth in the acknowledgment order and argued that the
     appellant failed to meet her burden of raising nonfrivolous allegations of Board
     jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 4 at 5-7. The appellant’s March 29, 2017 response set
     forth, for the first time, her arguments in support of her claim that her termination
     was due to partisan political reasons.       IAF, Tab 7.      Thus, it constitutes an
     untimely jurisdictional response that should have been filed by March 14, 2017.
     For these reasons, we find that the administrative judge did not abuse her
     discretion in declining to consider the appellant’s untimely response. See Gavette
     v. Department of the Treasury, 44 M.S.P.R. 166, 174 (1990) (stating that the
     deadline for closing the record is within the sound discretion of the administrative
     judge so long as the procedures used comport with the basic requirements of
     fairness and notice). Similarly, we decline to consider the appellant’s response
     for the first time on review.       See Banks v. Department of the Air Force,
     4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980); Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214
     (1980).
¶8         Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision, dismissing the appeal for lack
     of jurisdiction.

                              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

     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.
                                                                                        6

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 a ll
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:
                              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
                                                                                    7

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants tha t
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
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
                                                                                      8

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
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

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 Appea ls
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

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 an y 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.