Court Opinion

ID: 9965451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 16:00:25.590064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:05.437425
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

    KIDADA JAMES,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                     Appellant,                  PH-0731-19-0362-I-1

               v.

    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                          DATE: May 1, 2024
      MANAGEMENT,
                  Agency.

         THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

        Kidada James , Baltimore, Maryland, pro se.

        Darlene M. Carr , 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 the decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finding her
unsuitable for Federal employment. On petition for review, the appellant argues
that the Board’s electronic filing system was down during a portion of her
hearing, that she lacked legal representation, and that others accused of the same
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

offenses would have received a lesser penalty. 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 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).
      While the appellant was testifying during the video-hearing, she indicated
that she had been logged off the Board’s electronic filing system and thus could
not access electronically filed documents. Hearing Recording (HR). The agency
representative reported similar problems and stated that she would refer to the
hard copy of the file she had. HR. The administrative judge stated during the
hearing that “it doesn’t appear to be a problem” for the appellant in that her
challenge was to the reasons she was terminated by her private-sector employer,
not the basis for OPM’s adverse suitability determination. HR. Although the
appellant repeated that she was unable to access the electronic case file, at no
point did she request that the hearing be delayed or object to the administrative
judge proceeding with the hearing. HR. On review, the appellant argues that,
because the electronic case filing system was down during a portion of the
hearing, she could not clearly present the documents and explain the reasons for
her separation from her private-sector employer. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
                                                                                       3

Tab 1 at 4. We construe this claim as one of adjudicatory error, that is, error by
the administrative judge in continuing with the hearing under the circumstances.
      Because the appellant did not request a continuance below or object to the
administrative judge proceeding with the hearing, she is precluded from raising
the issue on review.       See McCarthy v. International Boundary and Water
Commission, 116 M.S.P.R. 594, ¶ 25 (2011) (stating that the appellant’s failure to
timely object to rulings during the hearing precludes his doing so on petition for
review), aff’d, 497 Fed. Appx. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Tarpley v. U.S. Postal
Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 579, 581 (1988) (stating that the appellant’s failure to
timely object to the administrative judge’s rulings on witnesses precludes his
doing so on petition for review). In any event, a n adjudicatory error that is not
prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an
initial decision. Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282
(1984).   Here, the administrative judge considered the appellant’s contentions
regarding the reasons for her previous separation and found, based on
contradictory evidence in the record, that the appellant’s explanation was not
credible. Initial Appeal File, Tab 27, Initial Decision at 4-6. Thus, the appellant
has failed to show that any error by the administrative judge prejudiced her
substantive rights. 2 Panter, 22 M.S.P.R. at 282.

2
  The appellant also argues on review that she was harmed by her lack of legal
representation during the proceedings below. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. While the appellant
has a statutory right to be represented by an attorney or other representative, it is the
appellant’s obligation to secure representation.           Grassell v. Department of
Transportation, 40 M.S.P.R. 554, 564 (1989). The Board is not required by law, rule,
or regulation to appoint counsel for an appellant. Id. To the extent that the appellant
was harmed by her lack of representation, she is responsible for that choice. See Sofio
v. Internal Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1981). Finally, regarding the
appellant’s argument about the penalty, PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, the Board’s jurisdiction
over a negative suitability determination does not extend to reviewing or modifying the
ultimate action taken as a result of a suitability determination, Folio v. Department of
Homeland Security, 402 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
                                                                                           4

                           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 has 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 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
                                                                                      7

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.
                                                                        8

      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.