Court Opinion

ID: 9951930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 16:00:26.161365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:43.457712
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ROSALEE GONZALEZ,                               DOCKET NUMBER
            Appellant,                          DE-0731-22-0176-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,                     DATE: March 18, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Ryan C. Nerney , Esquire, Ladera Ranch, California, for the appellant.

      Garrett T. Lyons , Esquire, Vestal, New York, for the appellant.

      Maria Iliadis , Esquire, 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 nonselection appeal for lack of jurisdiction.         On review,
she reargues that the agency’s decision not to proceed with her appointment
constituted a suitability action because she reasonably believed it was a

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

cancellation of eligibility for any position in the Federal Government. Petition
For Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 9-10. Generally, we grant petitions such 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).
      On review, the appellant also argues that the administrative judge erred
in finding that she did not raise an employment practices claim.          PFR File,
Tab 1 at 10. We disagree. The appellant is represented by legal counsel and her
response to the acknowledgment order clearly sets forth her argument for the
alleged suitability action. Initial Appeal File, Tab 5 at 5-10. For the first time on
review, the appellant attempts to raise an employment practices claim. PFR File,
Tab 1 at 10. She argues that the manner in which the agency applied the criminal
and financial background check to her candidacy “had no rational basis to the
position which she was denied employment.” Id. In making this argument, she
references the requirement that “[t]here shall be a rational relationship between
performance in the position filled . . . and the employment practice used.” Id.
at 9; 5 C.F.R. § 300.103(b)(1).
      Even considering this late raised argument, the appellant has not made a
nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction over an employment practices
                                                                                  3

appeal under 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a). The Board has jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R.
§ 300.104(a) when two conditions are met:           first, the appeal must concern
an employment practice that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is
involved in administering; and second, the employment practice must be alleged
to have violated one of the “basic requirements” for employment practices set
forth in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103.          Mapstone v. Department of the Interior,
110 M.S.P.R. 122, ¶ 7 (2008).
      The Board has found that an agency’s “misapplication” of a valid OPM
requirement may constitute an employment practice for purposes of Board
jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a). See Sauser v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 403, ¶ 7 (2010). However, “misapplication” in this context
does not mean that the agency or OPM inaccurately evaluated a candidate using a
valid OPM requirement. See Banks v. Department of Agriculture, 59 M.S.P.R.
157, 160 (1993) (declining to find that an agency’s alleged irregularities in
determining the appellant did not meet the qualifications for a vacancy was
an employment practice appealable to the Board), aff’d, 26 F.3d 140 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (Table). Rather, it means that the very application of the requirement to
the candidate violated one of the basic requisites of 5 C.F.R. § 300.103.       See
Dowd v. United States, 713 F.2d 720, 721-24 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (finding
jurisdiction over an employment practices appeal on the basis of a misapplication
of a valid OPM standard when the appellant asserted that the employment
practice at issue should not have applied to him at all); Sauser, 113 M.S.P.R. 403,
¶¶ 8-10 (finding that an appellant established jurisdiction over an employment
practices appeal based on an allegation that an agency improperly applied OPM
qualification standards that were not rationally related to performance in the
position to be filled).    Here, because the appellant does not challenge the
applicability of the background check at issue, just the result, she has not alleged
that the agency “misapplied” that requirement.           PFR File, Tab 1 at 10-11.
Therefore, the appellant failed to establish jurisdiction on this basis.
                                                                                          4

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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 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:

2
  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

                             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. 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
                                                                                  6

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

      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
                                                                                      7

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. 3   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.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.

3
   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,
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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.