Court Opinion

ID: 9373797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:28.618376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.681172
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SANDRA R. CORUM,                                DOCKET NUMBERS
                  Appellant,                         DC-0353-06-0728-X-1
                                                     DC-0353-06-0728-C-1
                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
                   Agency.
                                                     DATE: March 31, 2022

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Sandra R. Corum, Manassas, Virginia, pro se.

           LaDonna L. Griffith-Lesesne, Esquire, Landover, Maryland, for the
             agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         This compliance proceeding was initiated by the appellant’s March 14, 2014
     petition for enforcement of the Board’s July 10, 2012 Opinion and Order in
     Corum v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. DC-0353-06-0728-I-1.                  On
     September 6, 2016, the Board issued a nonprecedential order finding the agency

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     in partial noncompliance with the July 10, 2012 Opinion and Order. Corum v.
     U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. DC-0353-06-0728-C-1, Order (Sept. 6,
     2016); Corum v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. DC-0353-06-0728-C-1,
     Compliance Petition for Review (CPFR) File, Tab 10, Compliance Order (CO).
     For the reasons discussed below, we now find the agency in compliance and
     DISMISS the petition for enforcement.

        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2        On July 26, 2006, the appellant filed an appeal alleging improper denial of
     her request for reinstatement following a compensable injury.      Corum v. U.S.
     Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. DC-0353-06-0728-I-1, Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 1 at 3-4. On April 12, 2007, the administrative judge issued an initial
     decision dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.    IAF, Tab 25, Initial
     Decision.   Following the appellant’s petition for review, the Board issued a
     July 10, 2012 Opinion and Order reversing the denial of jurisdiction, finding that
     the agency arbitrarily and capriciously denied her restoration, and ordering the
     agency to conduct a proper job search.     Corum v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
     Docket No. DC-0353-06-0728-I-1, 118 M.S.P.R. 288 (2012); Corum v. U.S.
     Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. DC-0353-06-0728-I-1, Petition for Review
     File, Tab 7, Opinion and Order.
¶3        On March 14, 2014, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement of the
     Board’s July 10, 2012 Opinion and Order. Corum v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
     Docket No. DC-0353-06-0728-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 1.                   On
     November 6, 2015, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision
     finding the agency in compliance with the Board’s July 10, 2012 Opinion and
     Order. CF, Tab 30, Compliance Initial Decision.
¶4        On December 9, 2015, the appellant filed a petition for review of the
     compliance initial decision, challenging only the administrative judge’s findings
     on the appellant’s restored annual leave and the calculation of her overtime back
                                                                                         3

     pay.    CPFR File, Tab 1.         On September 6, 2016, the Board issued a
     nonprecedential order affirming the compliance initial deci sion in part and
     reversing the decision in part. CO. The Board found the agency in compliance
     regarding the restored annual leave, but not in compliance for the appellant’s
     overtime back pay because it failed to consider a similarly situated employee in
     calculating the overtime back pay. 2 CO at 5-9. The Board referred the matter to
     the Office of General Counsel to obtain compliance.

                                         ANALYSIS
¶5          The Board’s September 6, 2016 Order instructed the agency to recalculate
     the appellant’s overtime back pay and include in its calculations the overtime
     hours of an employee similarly situated to the appellant who was not considered
     in the agency’s original overtime calculation. CO at 8-9. On November 4, 2016,
     the agency submitted a pleading demonstrating that it had recalculated the
     appellant’s overtime back pay and included the overtime hours of the previously
     excluded similarly situated employee in its calculations. Corum v. U.S. Postal
     Service, MSPB Docket No. DC-0353-06-0728-X-1, Compliance Referral File
     (CRF), Tab 2 at 4-6.        On November 14, 2016, the agency submitted a
     supplemental pleading demonstrating that it paid the recalculated overtime back
     pay to the appellant. 3 CRF, Tab 3 at 4-7. On May 22, 2018, the Board noted that
     the agency appeared to have changed its methodology for calculating the
     appellant’s overtime back pay beyond what was ordered and directed the agency
     to explain its change. CRF, Tab 5 at 2-3.

     2
       The Board’s September 6, 2016 Order is incorporated into this Final Order by
     reference.
     3
       On June 6, 2018, the agency submitted a second supplemental pleading indicating that
     interest on the recalculated overtime back pay was paid to the appellant on
     November 18, 2016, and that the agency had simply neglected to inform the Board of
     the interest payment at that time. CRF, Tab 7 at 4-13.
                                                                                         4

¶6        On June 1, 2018, the agency submitted a pleading explaining that when it
     previously attempted to pay the appellant funds for overtime back pay on
     February 6 and August 1, 2014, it calculated the funds for the payment based on a
     mistaken belief about the appellant’s position. CRF, Tab 6 at 4-6. The agency
     also indicated, however, that this mistake eventually led to the appellant being
     paid for significantly more overtime hours for the time period of the 24 th pay
     period of 2008 through the year 2013 than she otherwise would have been entitled
     to, had the agency used the proper methodology for determining her overtime
     back pay. 4 Id. at 5-6. The agency stated that, because its incorrect methodology
     led to the appellant receiving significantly more funds than she otherwise would
     have been entitled to, it believed it was in compliance concerning the funds owed
     to the appellant for her overtime back pay for that time period. Id. On June 15,
     2018, the appellant submitted a reply to the agency’s June 1 and June 6, 2018
     responses, and in that reply, the appellant argued that the agency was not in
     compliance because it utilized the aforementioned incorrect methodology to
     determine her overtime back pay. CRF, Tab 8 at 1-2.
¶7        When the Board finds a personnel action unwarranted or not sustainable, it
     orders that the appellant be placed, as nearly as possible, in the situation she
     would have been in had the wrongful personnel action not occurred. House v.
     Department of the Army, 98 M.S.P.R. 530, ¶ 9 (2005). The agency bears the
     burden to prove its compliance with a Board order.           Id., ¶ 6.   An agency’s
     assertions of compliance must include a clear explanation of its compliance
     actions supported by documentary evidence.            Vaughan v. Department of
     Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R. 319, ¶ 5 (2011). The appellant may rebut the agency’s
     evidence of compliance by making “specific, nonconclusory, and supported

     4
        The agency’s original, incorrect calculation led to her re ceiving approximately
     338 hours of overtime back pay, whereas its revised calculation would have resulted in
     her only being paid for approximately 126 hours of overtime back pay. CRF, Tab 6
     at 5-6.
                                                                                           5

     assertions of continued noncompliance.”            Brown v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 325, ¶ 5 (2010). A careful review of the agency’s
     latest submission shows that the agency has now reached full compliance.
     Viewed together with the agency’s narrative statements, the agency’s submitted
     documentation demonstrates that the agency properly calculated the appellant’s
     overtime back pay using the correct comparators and paid the appellant an
     amount at least equal to what it owed her, along with interest. While the agency
     ultimately did not use the correct method to determine the appellant’s overtime
     back pay, its error resulted in her earning more overtime back pay than she
     otherwise would have received under the proper methodology, and thus leads to
     the conclusion that the agency was in compliance with the requirement to pay her
     the correct amount of overtime back pay owed.           Therefore, we find that the
     agency is now in full compliance with the Board’s July 10, 2012 Opinion and
     Order.
¶8         Accordingly, the Board finds that the agency is in compliance and dismisses
     the petition for enforcement.     This is the final decision of the Merit Systems
     Protection Board in this compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal
     Regulations, section 1201.183(b) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(b)).

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
              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

     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

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 f ile 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:
                              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
                                                                                    7

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
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
                                                                                      8

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 commercia l 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 practi ce 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

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 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.
                                                                                  9

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.
      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.