Court Opinion

ID: 9373635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:20.54368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.569450
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     PAWAN JUNEJA,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  SF-1221-15-0504-C-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: June 21, 2022
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Pawan Juneja, Beverly Hills, California, pro se.

           Joseph Manuel Briones, Los Angeles, California, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                           ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the compliance initial
     decision, which dismissed his petition for enforcement as moot.               For the
     following reasons, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the compliance
     initial decision, and find the agency in NONCOMPLIANCE.

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         On April 23, 2015, the appellant filed an individual right of action (IRA)
     appeal with the Board. Juneja v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket
     No. SF-1221-15-0504-W-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1. On June 12,
     2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which the appellant
     agreed to withdraw his appeal in exchange for, among other things, the agency’s
     agreement to revise his Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Proficiency Report pursuant to
     explicit terms in the agreement and remove any references to the prior FY 2013
     Proficiency Report from his Official Personnel File (OPF). IAF, Tab 11 at 2. As
     a result, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal
     as settled. Juneja v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-
     15-0504-W-1, Initial Decision (June 12, 2015).       Neither party petitioned for
     review.
¶3         On June 29, 2016, after learning that the agency did not revise the FY 2013
     Proficiency Report or update his OPF pursuant to the agreement’s terms, the
     appellant filed a petition for enforcement.    Juneja v. Department of Veterans
     Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-15-0504-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 1
     at 3. The appellant requested the enforcement of the settlement agreement and
     sanctions against the agency. Id.
¶4         In response to the petition for enforcement, the agency acknowledged that it
     failed to update the revised FY 2013 Proficiency Report in the appellant’s OPF
     but claimed that it was a technical oversight. CF, Tab 6 at 4. It asserted that it
     had corrected the FY 2013 Proficiency Report in a timely manner but that it failed
     to upload the document to the appellant’s OPF.        Id.   It also asserted that it
     uploaded the report to the appellant’s OPF on July 1, 2016, after he filed his
     petition for enforcement.     Id. at 5.   The agency provided documentation to
     support its assertions. Id. at 7-12.
¶5         In the compliance initial decision, the administrative judge dismissed the
     appellant’s petition for enforcement as moot. Juneja v. Department of Veterans
                                                                                      3

     Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-15-0504-C-1, Compliance Initial Decision
     (CID).   She found that, although the appellant’s frustration concerning the
     agency’s delay in complying with the settlement agreement was reasonable, the
     agency submitted credible documentation to support its assertion of full
     compliance with the settlement agreement.        CID at 4.   She also denied the
     appellant’s request for sanctions. CID at 3.
¶6        The appellant has filed a petition for review, the agency has resp onded in
     opposition, and the appellant has replied to the agency’s opposition. Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3-4.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶7        A settlement agreement is a contract, and the Board will adjudicate a
     petition to enforce a settlement agreement in accordance with contract law. Allen
     v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 659, ¶ 7 (2009), aff’d, 420 F.
     App’x 980 (Fed. Cir. 2011). When, as here, an appellant alleges noncompliance
     with a settlement agreement, the agency must produce relevant, material, and
     credible evidence of its compliance with the agreement. Id. The ultimate burden,
     however, remains with the appellant, as the party seeking enforcement, to prove
     breach by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
¶8        On review, the appellant’s primary challenge to the compliance initial
     decision is the administrative judge’s failure to address his argument that the
     revised FY 2013 Proficiency Report contains harmful information that constitutes
     a breach of the settlement agreement. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3-4, Tab 4 at 3; CF,
     Tab 11. Pursuant to the agreement, the agency agreed to make certain revisions
     to the FY 2013 Proficiency Report, including allowing the appellant to submit a
     written comment for attachment to the report in his OPF. IAF, Tab 11 at 2. Upon
     review of the evidence that the agency submitted in support of its compliance,
     however, it appears that it uploaded to the appellant’s OPF the written comment
     that he attached to his petition for enforcement, and not the written comment that
                                                                                         4

     he supplied to the agency pursuant to the agreement’s terms . CF, Tab 6 at 9. As
     a result, the uploaded copy of the appellant’s written comment contains the
     Board’s e-Appeal information concerning the document, including the pleading
     number and the 2016 submission date. Id. The appellant argues that the agency
     has breached the agreement because, by uploading the document containing the
     Board’s e-Appeal information to his OPF, the agency revealed that the FY 2013
     Proficiency Report was the subject of a Board appeal. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3-4,
     Tab 4 at 3. The appellant claims that he would be “better off” without the written
     comment uploaded by the agency because of the harmful information it contains .
     PFR File, Tab 4 at 3.
¶9           A breach of a settlement agreement is material when it relates to a matter of
     vital importance or goes to the essence of the contract. Kitt v. Department of the
     Navy, 116 M.S.P.R. 680, ¶ 11 (2011). In his IRA appeal, the appellant identified
     the FY 2013 Proficiency Report as the personnel action that the agency took
     against him in retaliation for making several protected disclosures. IAF, Tab 1
     at 5. The settlement agreement specifically called for the agency to revise the
     report and remove all references to the prior report from his OPF. IAF, Tab 11
     at 2.   Therefore, we find that the essence of the contract was a clean record
     regarding the FY 2013 Proficiency Report and that, by alerting anyone who reads
     the report that it was the subject of a Board appeal, it essentially negates the
     benefit of his bargain.     See King v. Department of the Navy, 130 F.3d 1031,
     1033-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997).        Accordingly, we find that the inclusion of the
     e-Appeal information on the appellant’s written comment constitutes a material
     breach of the agreement. See, e.g., Kitt, 116 M.S.P.R. 680, ¶¶ 2–3, 9, 11 (finding
     that the agency materially breached a settlement agreement by reta ining a record
     of the appellant’s removal despite a provision in the agreement requiring it to
     change the removal to a 30‑day suspension). Because we find that the agency
     breached a material provision of the settlement agreement, the appellant is not
                                                                                       5

      required to establish that the breach caused him actual harm.      See Mullins v.
      Department of the Air Force, 79 M.S.P.R. 206, ¶ 13 (1998) (explaining that the
      breach was material not because it resulted in a monetary loss but because the
      breached provision was material to the agreement).
¶10        When one party commits a material breach of a settlement agreement, the
      other party ordinarily is entitled either to enforce the settlement agreement or to
      rescind it and to reinstate his appeal. Kitt, 116 M.S.P.R. 680, ¶ 12. Here, the
      appellant seeks enforcement of the agreement. CF, Tab 1 at 3 ; PFR File, Tab 1
      at 6. Accordingly, we order the agency to remove the copy of the appellant’s
      written comment from his OPF that it uploaded initially and replace it with a
      clean copy of his written comment; that is, a copy that does not include the
      Board’s e-Appeal information.
¶11        The appellant again seeks the imposition of sanctions against the agency for
      its failure to comply with the settlement agreement. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. We
      find, however, that sanctions are not warranted at this time. See, e.g., Mercado v.
      Office of Personnel Management, 115 M.S.P.R. 65, ¶ 8 (2010).
¶12        Because we have found the agency in noncompliance, the agency is directed
      to file evidence of compliance with the Clerk of the Board, and the appellant will
      be afforded the opportunity to respond to that evidence. The appellant’s petition
      for enforcement will be referred to the Board’s Office of General Counsel, and,
      depending on the nature of the submissions, an attorney with the Office of
      General Counsel may contact the parties to further discuss the compliance
      process. The parties are required to cooperate with that individual in good faith.
      Because the purpose of the proceeding is to obtain complian ce, when appropriate,
      an Office of General Counsel attorney or paralegal may engage in ex parte
      communications to, among other things, better understand the evidence of
      compliance and any objections to that evidence. Thereafter, the Board will issue
      a final decision fully addressing the appellant’s petition for review of the
                                                                                         6

      compliance initial decision and setting forth the appellant’ s further appeal rights
      and the right to attorney fees, if applicable. 2

                                              ORDER
¶13         We ORDER the agency to submit to the Clerk of the Board within 45 days
      of the date of this Order satisfactory evidence of compliance. This evidence shall
      adhere to the requirements set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(6)(i), including
      submission of evidence and a narrative statement of compliance. The agency’s
      submission shall demonstrate that it removed the appellant’s written comment
      from his OPF and replaced it with a clean copy, as set forth above . The agency
      must serve all parties with copies of its submission.
¶14         The agency’s submission should be filed under the new docket number
      assigned to this compliance referral matter, MSPB Docket No. SF -1221-15-
      0504-X-1. All subsequent filings should refer to the compliance referral docket
      number set forth above and should be faxed to (202) 653 –7130 or mailed to the
      following address:
                                      Clerk of the Board
                              U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
                                     1615 M Street, N.W.
                                    Washington, D.C. 20419
      Submissions also may be made by electronic filing at the Boa rd’s e-Appeal site
      (https://e-appeal.mspb.gov) in accordance with its regulation at 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.14.
¶15         The appellant may respond to the agency’s evidence of compliance within
      20 days of the date of service of the agency’s submission.                5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.183(a)(8). If the appellant does not respond to the agency’s evidence of
      compliance, the Board may assume that he is satisfied with the agency’s actions
      and dismiss the petition for enforcement.

      2
       The subsequent decision may incorporate the analysis and findings set forth in this
      Order.
                                                                                         7

¶16        The agency is reminded that, if it fails to provide adequate evidence of
      compliance, the responsible agency official and the agency’s representative may
      be required to appear before the General Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection
      Board to show cause why the Board should not impose sanctions for the agency’s
      noncompliance in this case. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c). The Board’s authority to
      impose sanctions includes the authority to order that the responsible agency
      official “shall not be entitled to receive payment for service as an em ployee
      during any period that the order has not been complied with.”             5 U.S.C.
      § 1204(e)(2)(A).
¶17        This Order does not constitute a final order and therefore is not subject to
      judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). Upon the Board’s final resolution of
      the remaining issues in the petition for enforcement, a final order shall be issued,
      which then shall be subject to judicial review.

      FOR THE BOARD:                                    /s/ for
                                                Jennifer Everling
                                                Acting Clerk of the Board
      Washington, D.C.