Court Opinion

ID: 9964300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 17:00:53.535986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:17.441785
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

COLBY COY,                                      DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                  PH-0752-21-0328-X-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: April 26, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Colby Coy , Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, pro se.

      Joleen Payeur Olsen , Esquire, and Gabriel Tese , Chambersburg,
        Pennsylvania, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                 FINAL ORDER

      In an October 20, 2022 compliance initial decision, the administrative
judge found the agency in partial noncompliance with a settlement agreement that
had been accepted into the record for enforcement by the Board in a prior
compliance appeal. Coy v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. PH-0752-

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

21-0328-C-3, Compliance File (C-3 CF), Tab 4, Compliance Initial Decision (C-3
CID); Coy v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. PH-0752-21-0328-C-2,
Compliance File (C-2 CF), Tab 12, Tab 13, Compliance Initial Decision (C-2
CID).    Accordingly, the administrative judge granted in part the appellant’s
petition for enforcement and ordered the agency to comply with the term of the
settlement agreement requiring the agency to pay the appellant a lump sum of
$25,000. C-3 CID at 5. For the reasons discussed below, we now find the agency
in compliance and DISMISS the appellant’s petition for enforcement.

    DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
        On August 18 and 19, 2022, the parties signed a settlement agreement
providing, in relevant part, that the agency would pay the appellant a lump sum of
$25,000 within 30 days, i.e., by September 18, 2022, and that the appellant would
withdraw with prejudice his petition for enforcement of the Board’s final decision
in the underlying appeal. C-2 CF, Tab 12; Coy v. Department of the Army, MSPB
Docket No. PH-0752-21-0328-I-1, Initial Decision (Dec. 29, 2021).                    The
administrative judge accepted the settlement agreement into the record for
enforcement by the Board and dismissed the compliance appeal as settled. C-2
CID.
        On September 20, 2022, the appellant petitioned for enforcement of the
settlement agreement, arguing that he had still not received the lump sum
payment. C-3 CF, Tab 1. In the October 20, 2022 compliance initial decision,
the administrative judge found the agency in noncompliance to the extent it had
failed to pay the appellant the $25,000 lump sum by the agreed upon deadline and
ordered the agency to do so within 21 days of the decision. 2 C-3 CID at 4-5.
2
  The compliance initial decision informed the agency that, if it decided to take the
actions required by the decision, it must submit to the Clerk of the Board, within the
time limit for filing a petition for review under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), a statement that
it has taken the actions identified in the compliance initial decision, along with
evidence establishing that it has taken those actions. C-3 CID at 5-6; see 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.183(a)(6)(i). The compliance initial decision also informed the parties that they
could file a petition for review if they disagreed with the compliance initial decision.
                                                                                 3

      On November 22, 2022, and March 31, 2023, the agency provided evidence
and argument demonstrating that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) paid the appellant a $25,000 lump sum payment on November 4, 2022.
Coy v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. PH-0752-21-0328-X-1,
Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1, Tab 3 at 30-43. The appellant did not
respond to the agency’s submissions.
      A settlement agreement is a contract and, as such, will be enforced in
accordance with contract law.        Burke v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
121 M.S.P.R. 299, ¶ 8 (2014). The Board will enforce a settlement agreement
that has been entered into the record in the same manner as a final Board decision
or order.   Id.   When the appellant alleges noncompliance with a settlement
agreement, the agency must produce relevant material evidence of its compliance
with the agreement or show that there was good cause for noncompliance.        Id.
The ultimate burden, however, remains with the appellant to prove breach by a
preponderance of the evidence. Id.
      As described above, the administrative judge found that the agency was not
in compliance with the settlement agreement because it had failed to pay the
appellant the $25,000 lump sum by the agreed upon deadline. C-3 CID at 4-5.
The agency’s submissions show that it has now made this payment. In particular,
as set forth above, the agency provided evidence and argument reflecting that
DFAS paid the appellant $25,000 on November 4, 2022. CRF, Tabs 1, 3. As the
appellant has not responded to the agency’s assertions and evidence of
compliance, the Board assumes that he is satisfied.         See Baumgartner v.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 111 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 9 (2009).
      In light of the foregoing, we find that the agency is now in compliance and
dismiss the petition for enforcement.    This is the final decision of the Merit

C-3 CID at 6-7; see 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.114(e), 1201.183(a)(6)(ii).     Neither party
petitioned for review of the compliance initial decision.
                                                                                         4

Systems Protection Board in this compliance proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, section 1201.183(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

                           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 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

                             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.