Court Opinion

ID: 9373654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:31.021416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.831200
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SAMUEL VONZELL GORDON,                          DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          CH-315H-17-0418-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: June 7, 2022
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Samuel Vonzell Gordon, South Holland, Illinois, pro se.

           Rebecca Heeter, Esquire, 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 decision, which
     dismissed his 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 decision is based on an

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous a pplication 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 affec ted 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).
¶2        On petition for review, the appellant contends for the first time that the
     agency’s termination was based on partisan political reasons. He also reargues
     that the agency’s decision to terminate him was unjustified and that the agency
     committed harmful error in terminating him.        In addition, he challenges his
     separate appeal of the annuity overpayment decision of the Office of Personnel
     Management (OPM). Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 2.
¶3        The appellant cites 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b) and asserts, for the first time, that
     his termination was motivated by “discrimination due to partisan politics.” Id.
     at 7-8. As an initial matter, the Board generally will not consider an argument
     raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based
     on new and material evidence not previously available desp ite the party’s due
     diligence. Clay v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016); Banks
     v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980). The appellant has
     not explained why this argument could not have been raised before the
     administrative judge, and thus we need not consider it. Additionally, it appears
     that the appellant misunderstands the meaning of the phrase “partisan political
     reasons” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b). “Partisan political reasons” means
                                                                                          3

     “discrimination based on affiliation with any political party or candidate.”
     Mastriano v. Federal Aviation Administration, 714 F.2d 1152, 1155-56 (Fed. Cir.
     1983). The appellant does not allege that he suffered any discrimination based on
     his affiliation with any political party or candidate.
¶4         The appellant, moreover, contests the administrative judge’s finding that the
     agency’s action terminating him was justified and states that the agency
     committed harmful error in effectuating the action.         We disagree.        As the
     administrative judge correctly noted in addressing the appellant’s claim under
     5 C.F.R. § 315.806(c), the Board only has jurisdiction over a claim under
     section 315.806 for employees in the competitive service. See Ramirez-Evans v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 297, ¶ 10 (2010). Postal Service
     employees have not been part of the competitive service since the enactment of
     the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. Daisy v. U.S. Postal Service, 68 M.S.P.R.
     15, 19 (1995). Therefore, Postal Service employees, like the appellant, cannot
     establish Board jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(c). Herbert v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 86 M.S.P.R. 80, ¶ 12 (2000). Thus, we find that the termination action
     was warranted and that the appellant has failed to show that the agency, in taking
     the termination action, committed harmful error.
¶5         Regarding the appellant’s arguments concerning his appeal of OPM’s
     overpayment reconsideration decision, that appeal already has been fully
     adjudicated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has no
     connection to the instant appeal. See Gordon v. Office of Personnel Management,
     689 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Gordon v. Office of Personnel Management,
     MSPB     Docket    No. CH-0845-16-0204-I-1,        Final   Order    (Sept. 9,   2016).
     Consequently, the Board has no authority to reconsider that matter.
¶6         Finally, the appellant argues that the agency terminated him due to his “VA
     service connected disability.”     PFR File, Tab 2 at 14-15.       To the extent the
     appellant believes that the agency has discriminated against him based on his
     service in a uniformed service, he may file an appeal under the Uniformed
                                                                                      4

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 directly with the
Board, or file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor under 38 U.S.C. § 4322.
5 C.F.R. §§ 1208.12, 1208.11(a).

                         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 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 choice s 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).

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

      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 particu lar
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
                                                                                  6

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
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
                                                                                      7

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. 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 a t 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.uscour ts.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 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.
                                                                             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.