Court Opinion

ID: 9373184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:16.763691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.974917
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     BRENT W. AMOS,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DA-4324-17-0241-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,                          DATE: December 5, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Shaun Yancey, Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant.

           Steven R. Simon, Esquire, Phoenix, Arizona, 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   appeal    under   the   Uniformed    Services    Employment      and
     Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C.
     §§ 4301-4335) (USERRA) for lack of jurisdiction. On petition for review, the

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential or ders,
     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 Bo ard
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                             2

     appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in dismissing his appeal
     because he has an unconditional right to a hearing on his USERRA claim and that
     the agency took the identified actions against him in “reprisal” for engaging in
     “protected activity.” 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 statut e
     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. 2
     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         First, we find that, because the appellant failed to establish Board
     jurisdiction over his appeal, he is not entitled to a hearing. Downs v. Department
     of Veterans Affairs, 110 M.S.P.R. 139, ¶¶ 17-18 (2008) (holding that a USERRA
     claimant is entitled to a hearing only upon establishing Boa rd jurisdiction over
     his appeal). Second, to the extent the appellant is claiming reprisal for engaging
     in protected USERRA activity, he has not alleged that he exercised his rights

     2
       We have reviewed the appellant’s alleged new evidence submitted on review and have
     determined that it is either contained in the record below or is not material to his
     appeal. Therefore, it provides no basis to disturb the initial decision. Russo v. Veterans
     Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980) (holding that the Board will not grant a
     petition for review based on new evidence absent a showing that it is of sufficient
     weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision); Meier v.
     Department of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980) (holding that evidence that is
     already a part of the record is not new).
                                                                                      3

under USERRA or otherwise engaged in protected activity under the statute prior
to filing this Board appeal despite the administrative judge’s jurisdictional notice
in this regard. See 38 U.S.C. § 4311(b); Brasch v. Department of Transportation,
101 M.S.P.R. 145, ¶ 10 (2006) (setting forth the jurisdictional requirements for a
USERRA retaliation claim). Third, to the extent the appellant is cla iming reprisal
for   engaging    in   protected   equal   employment     opportunity    activity,   the
administrative judge properly found that, absent an appealable action, the Board
lacks jurisdiction over his attendant claims. See Metzenbaum v. Department of
Justice, 89 M.S.P.R. 285, ¶ 15 (2001) (holding that the Board’s authority
concerning USERRA complaints or appeals does not extend beyond the
complained-of discrimination because of military status, does not allow for a
decision on the merits of the underlying matter except to the extent nec essary to
address the appellant’s military status discrimination claims, and thus does not
include a review of other claims of prohibited discrimination).          The appellant
therefore has shown no basis to disturb the initial decision.

                         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

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.
                                                                                        4

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file withi n 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 f or 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:
                              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.
                                                                                  5

      (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
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:
                                                                                      6

                            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
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).

4
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial rev iew 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.
                                                                                  7

      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 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.
      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.