Court Opinion

ID: 9383285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 07:00:13.695926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:44.742056
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ANN M. MCGOVERN,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                          PH-0752-16-0455-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                           DATE: March 29, 2023
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Robert Fred Stone, Esquire, South Deerfield, Massachusetts, for the
        appellant.

      Joshua R. Carver, Esquire, Augusta, Maine, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                      FINAL ORDER

¶1        The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her removal appeal for lack of jurisdiction.        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).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        The agency removed the appellant from her Secretary position, effective
     November 14, 2015, for refusal to take a required drug test. Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 8 at 11, 13-22.      The appellant elected to challenge her removal
     through the equal employment opportunity (EEO) process by initiating counseling
     on December 28, 2015. Id. at 8. On March 29, 2016, the appellant was notified
     of her right to file a formal complaint, and she was advised that the filing
     deadline was April 20, 2016. IAF, Tab 5 at 12. However, she did not file her
     formal complaint of discrimination until May 6, 2016, fifteen days after the filing
     deadline. Id. The agency issued a final agency decision (FAD) on August 23,
     2016, dismissing her complaint as untimely filed and notifying her that she had
                                                                                        3

     the right to appeal the agency’s procedural decision to the Equal Employment
     Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Office of Federal Operations (OFO), or to the
     appropriate U.S. district court. Id. Instead of filing as instructed, the appellant
     filed an appeal with the Board on September 6, 2016, challenging the agency’s
     decision to remove her from her Secretary position and asserting that the appeal
     was a mixed-case appeal. IAF, Tab 1.
¶3         Without holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge issued an
     initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 15, Initial
     Decision (ID). She found that the appellant elected to challenge her removal by
     pursuing an EEO complaint, which was dismissed as untimely filed, and that she
     therefore was precluded from pursuing a Board appeal challenging the same
     adverse action. ID at 4. She also found that, to the extent the appellant argued
     that the doctrine of equitable tolling should be applied to find that her Board
     appeal was timely filed, the appeal was deemed timely filed.              Id.    The
     administrative judge found further that, although the appellant asserted that the
     Board should apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to her formal complaint of
     discrimination, the appellant provided no rule, regulation, law, or case in support
     of her claim. Id. Concluding, the administrative judge found that the appellant’s
     avenue of relief from the FAD’s dismissal based on untimeliness was to the
     EEOC’s OFO or to the appropriate U.S. district court, not to the Board, and that
     the Board defers to an employing agency’s timeliness decision. ID at 5.
¶4         The appellant has filed a petition for review and a supplement to her
     petition.   Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3.     The agency has filed a
     response. PFR File, Tab 7.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         In a mixed-case appeal, an employee may elect either to file a timely
     complaint of discrimination with her agency’s EEO off ice or timely file an appeal
     with the Board, but not both.        29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(b); see Crumpton v.
                                                                                      4

     Department of the Treasury, 98 M.S.P.R. 115, ¶ 10 (2004). Whichever is filed
     first is considered to be an election of that forum. Crumpton, 98 M.S.P.R. 115,
     ¶ 10. When an employee elects to file a complaint with the agency’s EEO office,
     that office may dismiss a complaint that fails to comply with the applicable
     regulatory time limits.   29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). An employee dissatisfied
     with such a dismissal then may appeal it to the EEOC or file a civil action in U.S.
     district court, but not the Board. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). Because the Board
     defers to a FAD finding that a complaint was untimely filed when that decision
     was not appealed to the EEOC, a dismissal of an EEO complaint as untimely
     precludes the subsequent pursuit of a Board appeal challenging the same adverse
     action. McCoy v. U.S. Postal Service, 108 M.S.P.R. 160, ¶ 11 (2008).
¶6        On review, the appellant asserts that the administrative judge erred in
     dismissing her appeal as untimely filed and that the administrative judge instead
     should have dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. PFR File, Tab 3 at 5-6.
     However, the administrative judge explicitly found that, “[w]hile it initially
     appeared that her Board appeal challenging her November 14, 2015 removal was
     untimely, once she demonstrated that she was challenging the August 23, 2016
     FAD, her appeal was deemed timely.”        ID at 2.    Thus, her appeal was not
     dismissed as untimely filed, as alleged by the appellant.              Rather, the
     administrative judge dismissed this appeal for lack of Board jurisdiction , which
     we find proper under the circumstances. ID at 1, 5; see McCoy, 108 M.S.P.R.
     160, ¶ 11.
¶7        Next, the appellant argues that she erroneously filed her appeal with the
     Board—rather than with the EEOC—and that the Board therefore should remand
     her appeal for “review in light of 5 U.S.C. [§] 7702(f).” PFR File, Tab 3 at 4.
     Section 7702(f) provides that, when “an employee is required to file any action,
     appeal, or petition under this section and the employee timely files the action,
     appeal, or petition with an agency other than the agency with which the action,
     appeal, or petition is to be filed, the employee shall be treated as having timely
                                                                                           5

     filed the action, appeal, or petition as of the date it is filed with the proper
     agency.” The appellant appears to argue that, pursuant to this section, the Board
     should remand her appeal to the administrative judge for a determination that her
     appeal be deemed timely filed with the proper agency—the EEOC. PFR File,
     Tab 4 at 5-6. However, the appellant filed her appeal with the Board —not with
     an agency other than the Board—and that appeal was deemed timely filed. Under
     these circumstances, section 7702(f) is inapplicable to the Board’s processing of
     her appeal, and the Board is without authority to direct the EEOC’s processing of
     her appeal.
¶8         Accordingly, we find the appellant has provided no basis upon which to
     disturb the initial decision.

                              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 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

     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

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
                                                                                  7

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
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
                                                                                      8

      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 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:

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,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                9

                             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 wa rrants 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.