Court Opinion

ID: 9373567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:54.514885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.743120
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SEAN M. DONAHUE,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         PH-3330-17-0167-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: July 20, 2022
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Sean M. Donahue, Hazleton, Pennsylvania, pro se.

           Marcus S. Graham, Esquire, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 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 decision, which
     granted his request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment
     Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA), but denied his request for legal fees and
     found his request for damages premature. Generally, we grant petitions such as

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 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.
¶2         As further detailed in the initial decision, the agency solicited applications
     to fill a Budget Analyst position.     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 16, Initial
     Decision (ID) at 1. The appellant applied but was not selected. ID at 1 -2. He
     filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL), alleging that the agency
     violated his right to compete under VEOA. ID at 2. DOL indicated that while his
     complaint had merit, it was unable to resolve the matter.       Id. Thereafter, the
     appellant filed the instant VEOA appeal with the Board. Id.
¶3         Before the administrative judge, the agency conceded that it violated the
     appellant’s VEOA rights. Id. The agency further indicated that, as a result, it
     had fully reconstructed the hiring process, added the appellant to the list of
     candidates referred to the selecting official, and made a new selection. Id. As a
     result of this reconstruction, the agency moved to dismiss the appellant’s appeal
     as moot. Id.
¶4         The administrative judge issued an initial decision, denying the agency’ s
     motion to dismiss and granting the appellant’s request for corrective action under
     VEOA. ID at 4-8. In short, the administrative judge found the appellant was not
                                                                                            3

     given a bona fide opportunity to compete in the reconstructed hiring process
     because, in effect, the agency refused to consider qualified external candidates
     such as the appellant based on its internal policy of giving internal candidates
     first consideration. ID at 6-8 (citing Gingery v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     114 M.S.P.R. 175 (2010)). The initial decision ordered the agency to reconstruct
     the hiring process while affording the appellant his right to compete. ID at 8-9.
¶5         Although the administrative judge granted corrective action, he denied the
     appellant’s motion for legal fees because the appellant failed to show that he
     incurred any. ID at 8. The administrative judge also dismissed the appellant’s
     request for damages as premature.        Id.   The appellant has filed a petition for
     review, reasserting his request for damages.        Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tab 1 at 3. The agency has filed a response, and the appellant has replied. PFR
     File, Tabs 3-4. 2
¶6         Under VEOA, a prevailing party is entitled to the following relief:
     (1) agency compliance with the statute or regulation relating to veterans’
     preference that the agency violated; (2) compensation for lost wages o r benefits
     that resulted from the violation; and (3) attorney fees, expert witness fees, and
     litigation expenses. 5 U.S.C. § 3330c. Further, if the violation was willful and
     the appellant is entitled to lost wages and benefits, he also is enti tled to receive
     liquidated damages equal to lost wages and benefits. 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a).
¶7         Based upon the above, the Board has recognized that if an agency violated
     an appellant’s right to compete, that appellant is not automatically entitled to the
     position sought; rather, he is entitled to a selection process consistent with law.
     Washburn v. Department of the Air Force, 119 M.S.P.R. 265, ¶ 13 (2013). If an
     appellant is selected during the reconstructed hiring process, the agency must pay

     2
       We note that the appellant attempted to file additional pleadings, but the Clerk of the
     Board properly rejected them. PFR File, Tabs 5-6; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5)
     (permitting a petition for review, response, and reply, but no other pleading without
     leave from the Clerk).
                                                                                         4

      lost wages and benefits.         See Weed v. Social Security Administration,
      124 M.S.P.R. 71, ¶¶ 11-21 (2016), aff’d, 711 F. App’x 624 (Fed. Cir. 2017). If
      the agency must pay lost wages and benefits, it also may be required to pay
      liquidated damages. Id., ¶¶ 7-10.
¶8          Because the record does not show whether the appellant has been selected
      for the Budget Analyst position as a result of a properly reconstructed hiring
      process, we agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that the request for
      damages is premature.     ID at 8; see Dow v. General Services Administration,
      116 M.S.P.R. 369, ¶ 14 (2011) (recognizing that an agency’s obligation to comply
      with an appellant’s veterans’ preference rights is an ongoing obligation; damages
      cannot be determined until after the issue of an individual’s entitlement to a
      position has been decided). Therefore, absent any other arguments from either
      party, we affirm the initial decision.

                                               ORDER
¶9          We ORDER the agency to properly reconstruct the hiring process for the
      Budget Analyst position under vacancy announcement number 693 -16-CA-
      1792891-BU, and to afford the appellant his right to compete for this position
      under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1).      See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts,
      726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no later
      than 20 days after the date of this decision.
¶10         We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing
      when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has
      taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask
      the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶11         No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully
      carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement
      with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant
      believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition
                                                                                 5

should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not
fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of
any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

                NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                      YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                     ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
     You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorn ey
fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at title 5 of
the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), section 3330c(b).     The regulations may be
found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.202, 1201.203, and 1208.25. If you believe you meet
these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees WITHIN
60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.                      You must file
your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued t he initial
decision on your appeal.

                  NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT
          REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST DAMAGES
      You may be entitled to be compensated by the agency for any loss of wages
or benefits you suffered because of the violation of your veterans’ preference
rights. 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a); 5 C.F.R § 1208.25(a). If you are entitled to such
compensation, and the violation is found to be willful, the Board has the authority
to order the agency to pay an amount equal to back pay as liquidated damages.
5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a); 5 C.F.R § 1208.25(a).      You may file a petition seeking
compensation for lost wages and benefits or damages with the office that issued
the initial decision in your appeal WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE
DATE OF THIS DECISION.
                                                                                         6

                           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.
      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:

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.
                                                                                    7

                             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
                                                                                  8

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
                                                                                      9

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).
      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 websi te 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.

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.
                                                                       10

      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.