Court Opinion

ID: 9394241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 20:00:14.008992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.188273
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JAMES B. HILLER,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-0752-14-0520-X-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,                         DATE: May 12, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Bradley P. Moss, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

           Richard Kane, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         In a June 15, 2018 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge
     granted, in part, the appellant’s second petition for enforcement of the Board’s
     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     September 30, 2016 final decision mitigating his demotion to a 30-day
     suspension. Hiller v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-14-
     0520-C-1, Compliance File, Tab 6, Compliance Initial Decision (CID); Hiller v.
     Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-14-0520-I-3, Initial Appeal
     File, Tab 28, Initial Decision. 3 Specifically, the administrative judge found the
     agency noncompliant with the Board’s final decision to the extent it failed to
     produce a legible document showing how it calculated interest on the appellant’s
     back pay award and ordered the agency to produce it. CID at 12. For the reasons
     discussed below, we now find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the
     appellant’s second petition for enforcement.

         DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
¶2         In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge informed the
     agency that, if it decided to take the action ordered, it must submit to the Clerk of
     the Board a narrative statement and evidence establishing compliance. CID at 13.
     In addition, he informed both parties that they could file a petition for review of
     the compliance initial decision if they disagreed with the findings therein. CID
     at 13-14. Neither party filed any submission with the Clerk of the Board within
     the time limit set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114. As such, pursuant to 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.183(b)-(c), the administrative judge’s findings of noncompliance became
     final, and the appellant’s second petition for enforcement was referred to the
     Board for a final decision on issues of compliance. Hiller v. Department of the
     Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-14-0520-X-1, Compliance Referral File
     (CRF), Tab 1.

     3
       Although the agency requested and received an extension of time to file an
     administrative petition for review of the initial decision, it ultimately did not file o ne.
     Hiller v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-14-0520-I-3, Petition for
     Review File, Tabs 1-2. Accordingly, the September 30, 2016 initial decision became
     the final decision of the Board.
                                                                                      3

¶3        On July 25, 2018, the Clerk of the Board issued an acknowledgment order
     directing the agency to submit evidence showing that it had complied with all
     actions identified in the compliance initial decision.   CRF, Tab 1 at 3.     The
     acknowledgement order informed the appellant that he may respond to the
     agency’s compliance submission within 20 calendar days of its date of service
     and that, in the absence of a response, the Board may assume that he was satisfied
     and dismiss the petition for enforcement. Id. at 3.
¶4        On April 9, 2019, the agency submitted, in relevant part, a legible back pay
     computation summary report showing that the appellant was entitled to $3,704.01
     in interest on his back pay award. CRF, Tab 2 at 6-12. The appellant has not
     filed a response to the agency’s submission, despite being notified of his
     opportunity to do so and of the consequences of not responding. Accordingly, we
     assume he is satisfied with the agency’s compliance.         See Baumgartner v.
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, 111 M.S.P.R. 86, ¶ 9 (2009).
¶5        In view of the agency’s submission and the appellant’s lack of response, the
     Board finds the agency 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(c)(1) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).
                                                                                      4

                  NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                        YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                       ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
      You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of
the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.                              You
must file your attorney fees motion with the office that issued the initial decision
on your appeal.

                         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.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choice s of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

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

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 particu lar
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
                                                                                  6

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
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
                                                                                      7

      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).
      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:

5
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial r eview 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

                             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 b y 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.