Court Opinion

ID: 9905469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:00:21.799492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:36.542976
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     NADINE YVONNE GRIFFIN,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                            AT-1221-18-0293-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                        DATE: November 28, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Nadine Yvonne Griffin , Auburn, Alabama, pro se.

           Tsopei T. Robinson , Esquire, West Palm Beach, Florida, for the agency.

                                            BEFORE

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

                                        FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her request for corrective action in an individual right of action (IRA)
     appeal as untimely filed. 2 Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in
     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
       The appellant’s June 11, 2018 petition for review of the initial decision dismissing for
     lack of jurisdiction her claim that she involuntarily resigned from the agency will be
     addressed in a separate decision. Griffin v. Department of Veterans Affairs , MSPB
     Docket No. AT-0752-18-0292-I-1, Petition for Review File, Tab 1.
                                                                                          2

     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).
¶2         On petition for review, the appellant does not challenge the administrative
     judge’s finding that her IRA appeal was untimely filed.           See Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 14, Initial Decision (ID) at 3. She argues that the administrative
     judge (1) denied her discovery that would have supported her explanation for
     failing to timely file an appeal; (2) mischaracterized her argument that the agency
     concealed the outcome of the Administrative Investigation Board investigation of
     her conduct; and (3) incorrectly applied equitable tolling. Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5-7. We have reviewed the appellant’s arguments and have
     concluded that she has not shown error in the administrative judge’s
     determination that the Board does not have the authority to waive the statutory
     time limit to file an IRA appeal, and the appellant did not establish that unusual
     circumstances warranted the application of equitable tolling to the time limit. ID
     at 2-4; see 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3)(A); Heimberger v. Department of Commerce,
     121 M.S.P.R. 10, ¶¶ 9-10 (2014) (providing that the filing deadline set forth in
     5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3)(A) may be subject to equitable tolling in unusual
     circumstances, such as when the appellant has been induced or tricked by her
                                                                                           3

     adversary’s misconduct into allowing the deadline to pass, and generally requires
     a showing that the appellant has been pursuing her rights diligently and some
     extraordinary circumstances stood in her way); 5 C.F.R. § 1209.5(a)-(b).
¶3         On review, the appellant also provides two sets of email correspondence,
     dated August 28, 2017, and September 18, 2017, that she asserts were not
     available at the time she filed her appeal. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6, 18-26. Under
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for
     the first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable
     before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence. Avansino v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980). The appellant has not explained why
     this evidence was unavailable before the record below closed; thus, we need not
     consider it.   Even if we were to consider the newly submitted evidence, the
     September 18, 2017 correspondence indicates that the appellant believed that, at
     the time of the correspondence, the agency was considering disciplinary action
     against her, which undercuts her argument that the agency concealed its intention
     to propose disciplinary action against her, causing her to miss the October 2017
     deadline to file an IRA appeal. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6, 18-20. Additionally, the
     discovery of new evidence generally does not constitute the type of extraordinary
     circumstances that warrants tolling a statutory deadline, especially where, as here,
     there is no indication that the evidence was previously unavailable because the
     agency improperly concealed it.            Heimberger, 121 M.S.P.R. 10, ¶ 11.
     Accordingly, the initial decision dismissing the IRA appeal as untimely filed is
     affirmed.

                              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

     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

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:
                              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.
                                                                                    5

      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
                                                                                    6

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. 4   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
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
                                                                                       7

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.

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:                       ______________________________
                                     Jennifer Everling
                                     Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.