Court Opinion

ID: 9799215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 06:00:19.09285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:48.721751
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SOCIAL SECURITY                                 DOCKET NUMBER
       ADMINISTRATION,                               CB-7521-16-0010-T-1
                   Petitioner,

                  v.
                                                     DATE: August 30, 2023
     MICHAEL D. TUCEVICH,
                   Respondent.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Susan L. Smith, San Francisco, California, for the petitioner.

           Christopher Landrigan, Esquire, and Sara A. Buchholz, Esquire,
             Washington, D.C., for the respondent.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The respondent has filed a petition for review, and the Social Security
     Administration (SSA) has filed a cross petition for review of the initial decision,
     which found good cause under 5 U.S.C. § 7521 to suspend the respondent for

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     10 days. For the reasons discussed below, we VACATE the initial decision and
     DISMISS the appeal as moot.

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         In a March 24, 2017 initial decision, the adjudicating administrative law
     judge concluded that SSA had good cause to suspend the respondent for 10 days.
     Initial Appeal File, Tab 28. The respondent filed a petition for review with the
     Board, and SSA filed a cross petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tabs 1, 3. While such petitions were pending before the Board, on March 20,
     2018, SSA filed a notice of withdrawal of its cross petition for review on the
     ground that the respondent had retired from his position as an Administrative Law
     Judge on or about January 31, 2018.           PFR File, Tab 7.       As a result, SSA
     maintained that there was no further relief that the Board could grant with respect
     to its cross petition for review. Id.
¶3         The Board issued an order directing SSA to support its assertion that the
     respondent had retired with evidence or sworn statements and affording the
     respondent an opportunity to show cause as to why the appeal should not be
     dismissed as moot.      PFR File, Tab 8.       In response, the agency submitted a
     Standard Form 50 indicating that the respondent had voluntarily retired, effective
     January 31, 2018. PFR File, Tab 9. The respondent also filed a response to the
     order, acknowledging that he had retired on that date, but maintaining that his
     retirement did not render the appeal moot because a case or controversy exists
     regarding whether the agency established good c ause to discipline him and
     because the Board could grant further relief by reversing the unfavorable initial
     decision. 2 PFR File, Tab 10.

     2
        The respondent’s citation in support of his arguments to Social Security
     Administration v. Callis, MSPB Docket No. CB-7521-14-0013-T-1, Initial Decision
     (Oct. 15, 2015), PFR File, Tab 10 at 5-6, is not persuasive because initial decisions are
     of no precedential value and cannot be cited or relied on as controlling authorit y, see
     Rockwell v. Department of Commerce, 39 M.S.P.R. 217, 222 (1988); 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113. Similarly, we find unavailing the respondent’s reliance on Special
                                                                                       3

                       DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4           A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties
     lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the appeal. Currier v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 72 M.S.P.R. 191, 195 (1996). Mootness can arise at any stage of
     litigation, and an appeal will be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an
     intervening event, the Board cannot grant any effectual relief or when the
     respondent has obtained all of the relief he could have obtained had h e prevailed
     before the Board. See id.
¶5           Here, the respondent’s retirement is an intervening event rending his appeal
     moot.     The respondent was never suspended because, due to his status as an
     administrative law judge, SSA could not act until the Board approved the
     suspension. See 5 U.S.C. § 7521(a). In that regard, the March 24, 2017 initial
     decision imposing a 10-day suspension did not become final because the
     respondent filed a petition for review with the Board.               See 5 C.F.R.
     §§ 1201.113(a), 1201.140(a)(2). Therefore, there is no showing of any monetary
     loss to the respondent.
¶6           To the extent the respondent has now retired and is no longer employed as
     an Administrative Law Judge, the agency can no longer impose a suspension even
     if the Board were to find good cause. See 5 U.S.C. § 7521(a) (stating that “[a]n
     action may be taken against an administrative law judge appointed under section
     3105 of this title by the agency in which the administrative law judge is employed
     only for good cause established and determined by the [Board] on the record after
     opportunity for hearing before the Board”) (emphasis added). Moreover, even if
     the Board were to find that there was no good cause to discipline the respondent,

     Counsel v. Malone, 84 M.S.P.R. 342, ¶¶ 33-34 (1999), in which the Board found that
     the respondents’ resignations did not render moot an action by the Office of Special
     Counsel alleging violations of the Hatch Act. PFR File, Tab 10 at 6. Malone is
     distinguishable to the extent it concerns a Hatch Act violation under which an
     employee’s penalty is not dependent on his continued Government employment, but
     rather may include assessment of a civil penalty and/or debarment from Federal
     employment. See 5 U.S.C. § 7326.
                                                                                           4

     such relief would be on paper and would not be meaningful or effective.
     Therefore, the respondent has not shown that the Board can grant any effectual
     relief regarding his appeal.      See, e.g., Occhipinti v. Department of Justice,
     61 M.S.P.R. 504, 508 (1994) (dismissing the appellant’s individual right of action
     appeal as moot because the appellant was no longer an employee of the agency,
     the Board could not order him to be reassigned to his former position, and the
     only relief that the Board could grant would be on paper, which it found was not
     meaningful or effective relief); see also White v. International Boundary and
     Water Commission, 59 M.S.P.R. 62, 65 (1993) (dismissing an appeal as moot
     because the Board could not order the appellant’s return to the agency’s rolls
     when he had subsequently been removed again and the only relief it could award
     was a paper declaration that the appellant was temporarily treated improperly,
     which it found was not effective relief).
¶7         Finally, although the respondent argues that a decision as to whether the
     agency established good cause to discipline him would provide appropriate
     guidance to SSA in considering discipline for employees who engage in similar
     misconduct, PFR File, Tab 10 at 6, the Board is specifically prohibited from
     issuing advisory opinions, and therefore may not render an opinion in a matter
     that is moot, see 5 U.S.C. § 1204(h); Occhipinti, 61 M.S.P.R. at 508 n.2.

                              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

     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.
                                                                                             5

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 4 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.

4
    In this case, the respondent has the same appeal rights as an “appellant.”
                                                                                   6

      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
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
                                                                                 7

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
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. 5   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

5
  The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expir ed on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
                                                                                      8

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.

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 App eals
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

      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.