Court Opinion

ID: 9380196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 17:00:08.23777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.355039
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     VALERIE JOHNSON,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         PH-0752-17-0017-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: March 17, 2023
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Valerie Johnson, New Haven, Connecticut, pro se.

           Kimberly Jacobs, Esquire, Newington, Connecticut, 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
     dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The agency issued the appellant a decision letter dated August 7, 2015,
     removing her from her position based upon charges of absence without leave
     (AWOL) and failure to follow leave procedures. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7
     at 82, 85. The parties subsequently entered into a Last Chance Agreement (LCA),
     which provided that the agency would hold the appellant’s removal in abeyance
     for a period of 3 years and that evidence of the appellant’s failure to maintain
     satisfactory conduct, performance, or work habits would constitute a breach of
     the agreement and would result in the reinstatement of the removal action without
     a right of appeal to the Board. Id. at 79-81. After the appellant was returned to
     work, the agency charged her with AWOL on numerous occasions between
     February and August 2016. Id. at 28-37. Because a charge of AWOL constituted
     a violation of the LCA, the agency issued a notice removing the appellant,
     effective September 27, 2016, for engaging in behavior that violated the LCA.
     Id. at 26. The appellant filed an appeal of the removal action. IAF, Tab 1.
                                                                                        3

¶3         Because there appeared to be a question of Board jurisdiction over the
     removal action, the administrative judge issued an acknowledgement order that
     advised the appellant of her burden regarding a removal in violation of an LCA.
     IAF, Tab 2. The appellant responded that she was sick, dealing with a medical
     condition, and that she did not want to advise management of her health issues.
     IAF, Tab 9 at 3. The appellant also asserted below that the agency charged her
     with AWOL because her supervisors did not process her request for leave under
     the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). IAF, Tab 1 at 5, Tab 9 at 3.
     The agency filed a response, which included the forms the appellant submitted
     requesting FMLA leave and her doctor’s certification for treatment and prognosis.
     IAF, Tab 7 at 19-25. Without holding the requested hearing, the administrative
     judge issued an initial decision finding that the waiver of appeal rights was valid
     and that the appellant admitted to the breach of the LCA. IAF, Tab 10, Initial
     Decision (ID) at 3-4.       The administrative judge found that, although she
     sympathized with the appellant’s difficulties, it did not provide a basis for finding
     that she had not breached the LCA. ID at 4. The administrative judge also noted
     that the FMLA application filed by the appellant on September 26, 2016, included
     a doctor’s certification for treatment and prognosis dated August 18, 2016, which
     did not cover the appellant’s 13 instances of AWOL during April and May 2016.
     Id.; IAF, Tab 7 at 19-25. Accordingly, the administrative judge dismissed the
     appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ID at 4.
¶4         The appellant has filed a timely petition for review. Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response. PFR File, Tab 3 .

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         The Board lacks jurisdiction over an action taken pursuant to an LCA in
     which an appellant waives her right to appeal to the Board. Easterling v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 110 M.S.P.R. 41, ¶ 12 (2008).       To establish that a waiver of
     appeal rights should not be enforced, an appellant must show one of the
                                                                                       4

     following: (1) she complied with the LCA; (2) the agency materially breached
     the LCA or acted in bad faith; (3) she did not voluntarily enter into the LCA; or
     (4) the LCA resulted from fraud or mutual mistake. Id.
¶6          On review, the appellant asserts that she did not purposefully breach the
     LCA. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. She also reasserts that she requested to be placed on
     FMLA leave at the time of the absences resulting in AWOL and that her
     supervisor intentionally never signed off on her FMLA requests. Id.; IAF, Tab 9.
¶7          We have reviewed the record evidence, and it does not support the
     appellant’s claims. Indeed, the record reflects that, even though the appellant was
     advised several times that her FMLA application package was not complete, she
     did not submit a completed FMLA package to the agency u ntil September 26,
     2016, the same date she received the removal notice. IAF, Tab 7 at 19-25, 39-45.
     Moreover, as the administrative judge correctly found, the appellant’s doctor’s
     certification for treatment and prognosis, dated August 18, 2016, did not cover
     April and May 2016, the period of time during which she was AWOL 13 times.
     ID at 4; IAF, Tab 7 at 23-24. Accordingly, we find that the appellant has set
     forth no basis to disturb the administrative judge’s finding that she breached the
     LCA.
¶8          The appellant also argues that she was removed because of her race . PFR
     File, Tab 1. This allegation, however, is irrelevant to the dispositive issue, i.e.,
     whether the Board may exercise jurisdiction over the removal appeal
     notwithstanding the appellant’s waiver of her appeal rights in the LCA.         See
     Easterling, 110 M.S.P.R. 41, ¶ 12.     Moreover, absent an otherwise appealable
     action, the Board lacks an independent source of jurisdiction to adjudicate the
     appellant’s discrimination claim.      See Wren v. Department of the Army,
     2 M.S.P.R. 1, 2 (1980), aff’d, 681 F.2d 867, 871-73 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
     Accordingly, we affirm the administrative judge’s dismissal of this appeal for
     lack of jurisdiction.
                                                                                        5

                           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 deci sion, 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.
                                                                                    6

                             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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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
                                                                                  7

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 fil e
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
                                                                                      8

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.usco urts.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 judic ial 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. P ub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                        9

      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.