Court Opinion

ID: 9965445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 16:00:19.406393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:04.959386
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SHAHWANA MIAN,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
            Appellant,                          DC-0752-21-0109-I-1

             v.

COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER                     DATE: May 1, 2024
  SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR DC,
             Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Shahwana Mian , Prospect, Kentucky, pro se.

      Runako Kumbula Allsopp , David Cumberbatch , and Donald Tanguilig ,
        Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her appeal of an alleged suspension and a constructive suspension
longer than 14 days and an alleged separation from Federal employment for lack
of jurisdiction.   For the reasons set forth below, the appellant’s petition for

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.114(e), (g).
                                BACKGROUND
      The appellant, a GS-12 Community Supervision Officer, filed the instant
appeal alleging the agency suspended her for over 14 days on November 16,
2020, separated her on December 17, 2020, and constructively suspended her
beginning on January 13, 2021. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 3 at 1, 3, Tab 22
at 3, 10-11, Tab 23 at 8-9, 19-20.       In connection with these actions, she also
alleged the agency denied her due process and committed prohibited personnel
practices, including engaging in discrimination and retaliation against her for
engaging in equal employment opportunity activity. IAF, Tab 3 at 5. The agency
moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appellant was only suspended
for 5 days. IAF, Tab 7 at 6, 9, 75-82.
      The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 29, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 12. She reasoned
that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege that her 5-day suspension in
November 2020 was an appealable adverse action within the Board’s jurisdiction.
ID at 7. She also found conclusory and implausible the appellant’s claim that she
was removed in December 2020. Id. Lastly, the administrative judge found that
the period of AWOL was not a constructive suspension because the appellant
effectively voluntarily absented herself from work.       ID at 8-11.   The initial
decision stated that it would become final on April 22, 2021, unless a petition for
review was filed by that date. ID at 12.
      On August 9, 2021, the appellant filed a petition for review of the initial
decision. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3, Tab 2 at 1. She did not
allege any error in the initial decision, but rather stated that she resigned her
employment in June 2021 and requested that the Board require the agency to
process her resignation. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3-5. The Office of the Clerk of the
Board subsequently notified the appellant that her petition for review appeared to
                                                                                   3

be untimely and provided her with an opportunity to submit a motion requesting
either to accept the filing as timely or waive the time limit for good cause. PFR
File, Tab 2 at 2.   The appellant submitted a motion requesting that the Board
waive the deadline to file the petition for review on the grounds that the agency’s
delay in processing her June 2021 resignation constitutes new and material
evidence. PFR File, Tab 3 at 4. The agency has responded to the petition for
review. PFR File, Tab 4. The appellant has submitted a reply to the agency’s
response. PFR File, Tab 5. Additionally, after the close of record, the appellant
filed a motion to proceed anonymously, which the agency opposed. PFR File,
Tabs 7, 11.

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
The petition for review is untimely filed.
      The initial decision indicated that the appellant’s petition for review had to
be filed by April 22, 2021. ID at 12. However, the appellant did not file her
petition for review until August 9, 2021, more than 3 months after the deadline.
PFR File, Tab 1. The Board’s regulations provide that a petition for review must
be filed within 35 days of the issuance of the initial decision or, if the appellant
shows that the initial decision was received more than 5 days after the date of
issuance, within 30 days after the date she received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.114(e). The appellant is registered as an e-filer and, therefore, is deemed
to have received the initial decision on the date of electronic submission. IAF,
Tab 3 at 2, Tab 30; see Rivera v. Social Security Administration, 111 M.S.P.R.
581, ¶ 5 (2009); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2) (2021). Further, as an e-filer, the
appellant was responsible for monitoring her case activity at e -Appeal to ensure
that she received all case-related documents. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(j)(3) (2021).
      We deem the appellant to have received the initial decision on March 18,
2021, the date it was electronically submitted. ID at 1; IAF, Tab 30. Therefore,
her deadline for filing a petition for review was 35 days later, on April 22, 2021.
                                                                                 4

The appellant’s August 9, 2021 petition for review was untimely by more than
3 months.

The appellant has failed to demonstrate good cause for her untimely filed petition
for review.
      In her motion to waive the deadline to file the petition for review, the
appellant stated as good cause for her untimely filing that the agency’s delay in
processing her June 2021 resignation constitutes new and material evidence. PFR
File, Tab 3 at 4. The agency responded submitting a Standard Form 50 showing
that the appellant’s resignation, effective June 2021, was processed in August
2021. PFR File, Tab 4 at 12. The Board will waive its filing deadline only upon
a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.114(f)-(g). To
establish good cause for an untimely filing, a party must show that she exercised
due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances of the case.
Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). The Board
will consider the length of the delay, the reasonableness of her excuse and her
showing of due diligence, whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has
presented evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond her control that
affected her ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or
misfortune which similarly shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely
file her petition. Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63
(1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table).      The discovery of new
evidence may constitute good cause for waiver of the Board’s filing deadline if
the evidence was not readily available before the close of the record below and is
of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial
decision.   Minnich v. Office of Personnel Management, 63 M.S.P.R. 573, 575
(1994), aff’d per curiam, 53 F.3d 348 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Table).
      Here, we find the appellant has failed to establish good cause for her
untimely petition for review. Although the appellant is proceeding pro se, her
more than 3-month delay in filing a petition for review is significant. Moreover,
                                                                                       5

the agency’s delay in processing her resignation is not material because the
appellant has not shown that it is of sufficient weight as to warrant an outcome
different from that of the initial decision. See Russo v. Veterans Administration,
3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980). Specifically, she has not shown how the delay in
processing her resignation is relevant to establishing jurisdiction over her alleged
suspension, constructive suspension, and separation. Therefore, we find that the
appellant has not presented new evidence on which to grant review of the initial
decision. See, e.g., Rogers v. Department of Defense, 75 M.S.P.R. 696, 698-99,
(1997) (finding that a letter from an administrative judge of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission was not material to the dismissal of a
removal appeal for lack of Board jurisdiction because the appellant did not
explain how the letter showed that the last chance agreement, pursuant to which
he was removed, was invalid).
      Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness
of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the
Board regarding the suspension appeal. 2

                         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

2
 Following the close of record on review, the appellant submitted a motion to proceed
anonymously, which the agency opposed. PFR File, Tabs 7, 11. A litigant seeking
anonymity before the Board must present evidence establishing that harm is likely, not
merely possible, if her name is disclosed. Ortiz v. Department of Justice, 103 M.S.P.R.
621, ¶ 10 (2006). Here, the appellant failed to indicate why she is requesting to proceed
anonymously. Accordingly, her request is denied.
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

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.
      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
                                                                                    7

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
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,
                                                                                      8

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

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
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,
                                                                                  9

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.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.

132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                       10

      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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.