Court Opinion

ID: 9405362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 06:00:17.693922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.568660
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CRAIG M. SINGLETARY,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-0752-16-0880-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: June 27, 2023
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Humphrey S. Cummings, Esquire, Charlotte, North Carolina, for the
             appellant.

           Greg Allan Ribreau, Esquire, Charlotte, North Carolina, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decisi on, which
     dismissed his restoration 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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. Except as expressly MODIFIED by this Final Order
     to apply the nonfrivolous allegation standard for establishing jurisdiction set forth
     in the Board’s revised regulations, we AFFIRM the initial decision.
¶2         On September 15, 2016, the appellant filed the instant appeal alleging that
     the agency denied him restoration from November 3, 2015, to January 12, 2016,
     and discriminated against him based upon his disability, harassed him, and
     retaliated against him for his previous equal employment opportunity (EEO)
     activity and for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Initial Appeal File (IAF),
     Tab 1. He requested a hearing. Id. The agency moved to dismiss the appeal for
     lack of jurisdiction because the appellant had not alleged tha t his absence was due
     to a compensable injury. IAF, Tab 5.       Subsequently, the administrative judge
     issued an order informing the parties of the requirements for establishing
     jurisdiction and ordering the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not
     be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 6. The appellant did not respond
     to the order. Accordingly, without holding the appellant’s requested hearing, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of
     jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 7, Initial Decision (ID).
                                                                                            3

¶3         The appellant has filed a petition for review, and the agency has responded
     in opposition to his petition. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3. 2
¶4         On review, the appellant challenges the initial decision and asks the Board
     to grant him a hearing and adjudicate his claims of discrimination based upon
     disability, failure to accommodate his disability, and retaliation for his prior EEO
     and workers’ compensation activity. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3-8. 3 However, as the
     administrative judge correctly stated, the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those
     matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule , or regulation. ID
     at 2; see Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir.
     1985).   Under the Board’s revised regulations, to establish jurisdiction over a
     denial of restoration claim as a partially recovered employee for any appeal filed
     on or after March 30, 2015, an appellant is required to make nonfr ivolous
     allegations of the following:      (1) he was absent from his position due to a
     compensable injury; (2) he recovered sufficiently to return to duty on a part-time
     basis, or to return to work in a position with less demanding physical
     requirements than those previously required of him; (3) the agency denied his
     request for restoration; and (4) the denial was arbitrary and c apricious because of
     the agency’s failure to perform its obligations under 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d). See

     2
       The agency challenges the timeliness of the petition for review because the initial
     decision became final on December 7, 2016, and the Clerk of the Board did not receive
     the petition until December 12, 2016. PFR File, Tab 3 at 5-6. However, the appellant
     mailed the petition for review when it was due, on December 7, 2016, PFR File, Tab 1,
     and thus it was timely filed, 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.4(l), 1201.114(e). Further, to the extent
     that the agency alleges that the appellant should have filed his petition via e-Appeal on
     December 7, 2016, such filing is not mandatory. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(f).
     3
       With his petition, the appellant attached a November 2015 letter requesting EEO
     counseling, a March 2016 EEO specialist’s inquiry report, and an EEO dispute
     resolution specialist’s March 2016 report. We do not consider this evidence because it
     is not new. PFR File, Tab 1; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). He also attached a
     December 7, 2016 declaration from his attorney. We do not consider this evidence
     because it is not material to the issue of jurisdiction. PFR File, Tab 1; see 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.115(d).
                                                                                           4

     Kingsley v. U.S. Postal Service, 123 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶ 11 (2016); 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.57(b). 4
¶5         We agree with the administrative judge that, although the appellant
     originally had a compensable injury, he did not allege that his absence between
     November 3, 2015, and January 12, 2016, was due to that injury. ID at 3; IAF,
     Tab 1, Tab 5 at 10-11. Instead, the appellant submitted evidence to the agency
     that his absence was due to other medical conditions. IAF, Tab 5 at 28-33, 41-42.
     Thus, the record reflects that the appellant was not absent due to a compensable
     injury, and we lack jurisdiction over his claim.
¶6         Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we cannot
     address the appellant’s claims of discrimination based upon disability, failure to
     accommodate his disability, and retaliation for his EEO and workers’
     compensation activity. See Wren v. Department of the Army, 2 M.S.P.R. 1, 2
     (1980) (finding that prohibited personnel practices are not an independent source
     of Board jurisdiction and that, absent an otherwise appealable action, the Board
     lacks jurisdiction to consider an appellant’s affirmative defenses) , aff’d, 681 F.2d
     867, 871-73 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

     4
       The administrative judge informed the parties that the appellant must establish
     jurisdiction by preponderant evidence and applied this standard in the initial decision.
     IAF, Tab 6; ID at 3. However, because the appellant filed the instant appeal on or after
     March 30, 2015, he only is required to make a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction.
     See Kingsley, 123 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶ 10. The difference in standard does not affect the
     appellant’s substantive rights because the newer standard is more lenient, and he could
     not establish jurisdiction under either standard. See Panter v. Department of the Air
     Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (stating that an adjudicatory error that is not
     prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal of an initial
     decision); compare 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q), with 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(s).
                                                                                      5

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      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 a pplicable 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).

5
  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

      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 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
                                                                                  7

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 resp ective
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
                                                                                      8

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. 6 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

6
   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 fo r 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, 2 017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                             9

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.