Court Opinion

ID: 9410603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-22 06:00:16.671626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.926304
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     PAWAN JUNEJA,                                   DOCKET NUMBERS
                         Appellant,                  SF-1221-15-0504-X-1
                                                     SF-1221-15-0504-C-1
                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
       AFFAIRS,                                      DATE: July 21, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Pawan Juneja, Beverly Hills, California, pro se.

           Thomas L. Davis, Los Angeles, California, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         In an October 25, 2016 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge
     found the agency in noncompliance with the Board’s June 12, 2015 decision
     dismissing the appellant’s appeal based on a settlement agreement entered into

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the record for enforcement by the Board.      Juneja v. Department of Veterans
     Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-15-0504-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 12,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID); Juneja v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-15-0504-W-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 12,
     Initial Decision (ID). The appellant filed a petition for review of the CID, which
     the Board granted on June 21, 2022. Juneja v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-15-0504-C-1, Order at 1 (June 21, 2022); Juneja v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-15-0504-C-1,
     Compliance Petition for Review (CPFR) File, Tab 5.        The Board referred the
     outstanding compliance issues to the Board’s Office of General Counsel for
     further consideration, docketing the subsequent proceedings under Juneja v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-15-0504-X-1,
     Compliance Referral File (CRF).     June 21, 2022 Order, ¶¶ 12-14; CPFR File,
     Tab 5. We now JOIN these appeals for processing, and for the reasons discussed
     below, we find the agency is now in compliance and DISMISS the petition for
     enforcement.

        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2        In the June 21, 2022 Order, the Board found that the agency was not in
     compliance with the settlement agreement because it uploaded to the appellant’s
     Official Personnel File (OPF) an incorrect copy of the appellant’s written
     comment that he supplied to the agency pursuant to the terms of their settlement
     agreement.     June 21, 2022 Order, ¶¶ 7-9; CPFR File, Tab 5.    As a result, the
     Board ordered the agency to remove the incorrect copy of the appellant’s written
     comment from his OPF and replace it with a clean copy of his written comment–
     one without markings on the document indicating it was submitted through the
     Board’s e-Appeal application. June 21, 2022 Order, ¶ 10; CPFR File, Tab 5.
¶3        On August 5, 2022, the agency submitted a pleading in response to the
     Board’s June 21, 2022 Order. CRF, Tab 2. The agency stated that the agency
                                                                                        3

     replaced the incorrect copy of the appellant’s submitted comment from his OPF
     with a correct copy that did not include the Board’s e -Appeal markings on the
     document, and provided evidence in support of its assertion. Id. The appellant
     did not file any response to the agency’s submission.

                                        ANALYSIS
¶4        A settlement agreement is a contract and, as such, will be enforced in
     accordance with contract law.        Burke v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     121 M.S.P.R. 299, ¶ 8 (2014). The Board will enforce a settlement agreement
     that has been entered into the record in the same manner as a final Board decision
     or order.   Id.   When the appellant alleges noncompliance with a settlement
     agreement, the agency must produce relevant material evidence of its compliance
     with the agreement or show that there was good cause for noncompliance.          Id.
     The ultimate burden, however, remains with the appellant to prove breach by a
     preponderance of the evidence. Id.
¶5        Here, the agency has submitted an explanation of its compliance efforts,
     supported by documentary evidence. CRF, Tab 2 at 3, 5-9. The appellant has not
     responded, despite the notice in the Board’s order that if he failed to respond, the
     Board might assume he was satisfied and dismiss the petition for enforcement.
     June 21, 2022 Order, ¶ 15; CPFR File, Tab 5. Accordingly, the Board assumes
     that he is satisfied.   Therefore, based on the agency’s submission and the
     appellant’s lack of response, we find that the agency is now in full compliance
     with the Board’s June 12, 2015 Order.
¶6        Accordingly, the Board finds that the agency is in compliance an d dismisses
     the petition for enforcement.    This is the final decision of the Merit Systems
     Protection Board in these compliance proceedings. Title 5 of the Code of Federal
     Regulations, section 1201.183(b) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(b)).
                                                                                         4

                           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 below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which case s 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.
                                                                                   5

                             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
                                                                                  6

requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other secur ity.       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 deliver y 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    Protectio n
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
                                                                                       7

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice descri bed 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. 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

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 b y 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 c ompetent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                             8

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.