Court Opinion

ID: 9963449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 16:01:02.685459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:51.238565
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

GABRIEL KOTSIS,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        AT-0432-16-0006-B-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF                                   DATE: April 24, 2024
  TRANSPORTATION,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Gabriel Kotsis , Atlanta, Georgia, pro se.

      Dolores Francis , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed his performance-based removal. On petition for review, among other
things, the appellant attributes his failure to respond to the administrative judge’s
orders below to his representative’s failure to timely inform him of the
termination of his representation. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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(b).

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      In the remand proceedings below, the administrative judge ordered the
parties to advise him whether additional discovery or reconvening of the hearing
would be required pursuant to the Board’s August 9, 2022 Remand Order. Kotsis
v. Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket No. AT-0432-16-0006-B-1,
Remand File (RF), Tab 5 at 1.             Because neither party responded, the
administrative judge issued a close of record order setting a date by which
additional evidence and argument must be received. RF, Tab 6 at 1. Neither
party responded to this order either.     The administrative judge then issued a
remand initial decision, affirming the appellant’s removal and finding his
affirmative defenses without merit.
      In his pro se petition for review, the appellant appears to attribute his
failure to respond to the administrative judge’s orders to his representative’s
failure to timely inform him of the termination of his representation. Kotsis v.
Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket No. AT-0432-16-0006-B-1,
                                                                                      3

Remand Petition for Review (RPFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. Although an appellant is
bound by the errors of his chosen representative, the Board has held that, when an
appellant’s diligent efforts to prosecute his appeal were thwarted by his
representative’s negligence or malfeasance, the appellant and his representative
were not acting as one, and the representative’s negligence or malfeasance should
not be attributed to the appellant.           Caracciolo v. Office of Personnel
Management, 86 M.S.P.R. 601, ¶ 5 (2000). Here, it is not clear from the petition
for review or the circumstances that the appellant’s prior representative
committed negligence or malfeasance such that relief would be appropriate. After
the appellant’s representative filed the petition for review in the initial appeal, the
appellant filed his reply to the agency’s response as well as the motion to excuse
the untimely filing of his reply, both pro se.            Kotsis v. Department of
Transportation, MSPB Docket No. AT-0432-16-0006-I-1, Petition for Review
File, Tabs 4, 6. These pleadings indicate that the appellant should have been
aware when he filed them in 2016 that his prior representative had ceased
representing him. This was many years before the Board’s August 2022 Remand
Order and subsequent proceedings. Further, the circumstances indicate that the
appellant was less than diligent in prosecuting his appeal during the remand
proceedings.
      In his petition for review, the appellant states that he was informed when
he visited his representative’s firm’s offices in person on October 11, 2022, after
the issuance of the remand initial decision, that his representative no longer
worked for the firm and the firm no longer represented him in his appeal.
RPFR File, Tab 1 at 4. Because the appellant was a registered e-filer, it can be
presumed that he received both the administrative judge’s September 6,
2022 Order inviting the parties to request discovery or a hearing and the
September 14, 2022 Close of Record Order stating that neither party had done so.
RF, Tabs 5-6; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2) (documents served electronically on
registered e-filers are deemed received on the date of electronic submission). Yet
                                                                                           4

the appellant’s statements indicate that he chose to wait until after the
October 6, 2022 Remand Initial Decision to first contact his representative about
the remand proceedings.         RPFR File, Tab 1 at 1.          It thus appears that the
appellant’s failures to respond to the administrative judge’s orders in the remand
proceedings were attributable foremost to his failure to diligently prosecute his
appeal. See Rowe v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 802 F.2d 434, 438 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (stating that an appellant has a personal duty to monitor the progress of
his appeal at all times and not leave it entirely to his attorney). Under these
circumstances, we find that the appellant is not entitled to any relief regarding
this issue. 2

2
   The appellant raises several new arguments on review, namely what appears to
constitute an age discrimination affirmative defense and claims related to his
performance appraisals and his supervisor’s feedback. RPFR File, Tab 1 at 5-6. The
appellant failed to raise these claims below or show that they are based on new and
material evidence not previously available despite due diligence, and we thus decline to
consider them. Clay v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016). In any
event, the evidence is insufficient to support an age discrimination affirmative defense
or the appellant’s claim regarding his 2017 performance appraisal, and the appellant’s
claim that the deciding official did not give him performance feedback has no bearing
on whether the agency proved the elements of a performance -based removal under
5 U.S.C. chapter 43. The appellant also appears to raise on review a national origin
discrimination affirmative defense, which he raised in his initial appeal but at no point
thereafter until the petition for review of the remand initial decision. RPFR File, Tab 1
at 5; Kotsis v. Department of Transportation, MSPB Docket No. AT-0432-16-0006-I-1,
Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 16. Pursuant to Thurman v. U.S. Postal Service,
2022 MSPB 21, ¶¶ 17-18, we find that the appellant has abandoned this affirmative
defense. In his “statement of the issues” in his prehearing submission in the initial
appeal, the appellant asserted affirmative defenses of equal employment opportunity
reprisal and disability discrimination, but none else. IAF, Tab 26 at 4. He did not
mention a national origin discrimination affirmative defense again after initially raising
it in his appeal, did not object to the summary of the prehearing conference omitting the
defense despite specifically being afforded the chance to object, was represented during
the course of the appeal at least until his reply in the initial appeal’s petition for review
proceedings, and there is no indication that his presumptive abandonment of the defense
was the product of confusion or information provided by the agency or the Board. IAF,
28 at 1, 5-10; Hearing Recording (opening remarks of the administrative judge). Thus,
we discern no reason to address this argument further. Thurman, 2022 MSPB 21, ¶ 17.
In addition, the record evidence does not support such an affirmative defense.
                                                                                          5

                           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.
                                                                                    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. 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
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
                                                                                  7

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 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 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.

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.
                                                                        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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.