Court Opinion

ID: 9388882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 22:00:10.50475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:23.581091
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ROSETTA M. HALL,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         CH-4324-17-0097-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,                      DATE: April 21, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Rosetta M. Hall, Florissant, Missouri, pro se.

           Patricia Del Vecchio, Saint Louis, Missouri, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 2

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     found that she failed to make a prima facie case that the agency discriminated
     against her based on her military service and denied her request for corrective

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
       Member Leavitt’s name is included in decisions on which the three -member Board
     completed the voting process prior to his March 1, 2023 departure.
                                                                                         2

     action.   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 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,
     which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     The appellant’s assertions of discovery and adjudicatory error are unavailing.
¶2         In her petition for review, the appellant alleges that the agency was not
     responsive to her interrogatories and requests for documents during di scovery.
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5-7.           She also asserts that the
     administrative judge did not allow her to present evidence regarding two
     additional nonselections, id. at 4, improperly denied her a witness, id. at 9, and
     improperly heard evidence through a telephonic hearing, id. at 7. She contends
     further that the vacancy announcements do not describe how the rating procedures
     are used to help determine the best qualified candidates or how veterans are to
     apply for special hiring authorities and disagrees with the agency’s scoring and
     ranking methods. Id. at 14-22.
¶3         The appellant filed a motion to compel below, asserting that the agency had
     failed to produce fully responsive answers to her discovery requests, despite its
                                                                                          3

     obligation to do so and her good faith attempts to resolve this matter.         Initial
     Appeal File (IAF), Tab 11. The administrative judge granted the motion in part,
     ordering the agency to respond to some requests for admissions, to provide the
     appellant access to her electronic official personnel folder, and to respond in
     detail to specific interrogatories. IAF, Tab 19. Nothing in the record suggests
     that the parties continued to have disputes regarding discovery after the
     administrative judge issued that order. The appellant filed no further objections
     stating what, if any, discovery she still had not received . Additionally, in the
     summary of prehearing conference, the administrative judge stated that the parties
     report no outstanding discovery issues. IAF, Tab 27 at 6.
¶4        The summary of the prehearing conference also identified the five positions
     at issue, the approved and disapproved witnesses, and the issues to be
     adjudicated; it additionally specified that the hearing would be telephonic. Id. at
     1-3, 5-7.   The administrative judge further stated that any objections to the
     summary must be filed in writing within 7 days of the order.        Id. at 7.     The
     appellant did not timely object to the summary, and her failure to do so precludes
     her from raising on review any objection regarding discovery, vacancies to be
     addressed in the initial decision, denial of witnesses, and the method of
     conducting the hearing.    See McCarthy v. International Boundary and Water
     Commission, 116 M.S.P.R. 594, ¶ 25 (2011) (finding that the appellant’s failure
     to timely object to rulings during the hearing precludes her from doing so on
     petition for review), aff’d, 497 F. App’x 4 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Tarpley v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 579, 581 (1988) (stating that the appellant’s failure
     to timely object to the administrative judge’s rulings on witnesses precludes her
     from doing so on petition for review).

     The administrative judge properly denied the appellant’s request for corrective
     action.
¶5        The appellant’s petition for review generally challenges the administrative
     judge’s findings that the appellant failed to prove a violation of the Uniformed
                                                                                      4

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (codified as
amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335).           We have considered the appellant’s
challenge to these findings, and because we discern no error in the administrative
judge’s initial decision regarding these matters, we will not disturb them. See
Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 105-06 (1997) (finding no reason
to disturb the administrative judge’s findings when she considered the evidence
as a whole, drew appropriate references, and made reasoned conclusions); see
also Broughton v. Department of Health and Human Services, 33 M.S.P.R. 357,
359 (1987) (same). 3

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
      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.

3
  On June 18, 2018, the appellant filed a “Motion to Accept Additional Information.”
PFR File, Tab 6. The appellant has not shown that the additional evidence that she
seeks to submit is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the
initial decision. See Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980).
Thus, we deny the appellant’s motion.
4
  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

      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
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
                                                                                  6

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 rece ives 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 or igin, 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, th e
address of the EEOC is:
                                                                                      7

                            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
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).

5
   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

      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.