Court Opinion

ID: 9373407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:48.733739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.330273
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     LISA Y. WEBSTER,                                DOCKET NUMBERS
                   Appellant,                        PH-1221-21-0330-W-1
                                                     PH-0714-22-0005-I-1
                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
       AFFAIRS,                                      DATE: September 20, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Lisa Y. Webster, Kenova, West Virginia, pro se.

           Shelly S. Glenn, Baltimore, Maryland, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         After issuance of the February 2 and February 18, 2022 initial decisions in
     these appeals, the parties notified the Board that they had settled the appeal s.
     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 15, Initial Decision; Petition for Review (PFR)

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     File, Tab 2. 2 We now JOIN these appeals for processing 3 and, for the reasons set
     forth below, we DISMISS the appeals as settled.
¶2        The settlement agreement was signed and dated by the appellant on
     March 31, 2022, and by the agency on April 1, 2022.          PFR File, Tab 2.    In
     pertinent part, it provides that in exchange for certain promises by the agency,
     the appellant agrees to withdraw with prejudice her pending appeal in Webster v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-21-0330-P-1, and to
     withdraw with prejudice the instant appeals pending on petition for review.
     Id. at 8-9. The settlement agreement further provides that the parties agreed that
     the initial decisions in the instant appeals would be vacated. Id. at 9.
¶3        On May 5, 2022, the agency filed a motion requesting that the Board, nunc
     pro tunc, docket its March 1, 2022 Motion for Expedited Settlement Conference
     —which had been returned undocketed pursuant to the Clerk’s Office’s
     understanding that the agency did not intend it as a petition for review , see PFR
     File, Tab 1—as a request for an extension of time to file a petition for review;
     vacate the initial decisions in the instant appeals; and direct that the settlement
     agreement be accepted in the instant appeals and in MSPB Docket No. PH-1221-
     21-0330-P-1, which the administrative judge had dismissed without prejudice
     pending the outcome of the instant appeals. PFR File, Tab 4 at 11.
¶4        Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the
     parties have entered into a settlement agreement, whether they understand its
     terms, and whether they intend to have the agreement entered into the record for
     enforcement by the Board.      See Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R.

     2
       As the initial decisions had already been issued and become final by the time the
     parties notified the Board of their settlement agreement, the submission s were
     considered and docketed as petitions for review of the initial decisions. PFR File,
     Tab 3.
     3
      Citations herein will be to the lead case, MSPB Docket No. PH -1221-21-0330-W-1.
     The record in both petitions for review is identical, however.
                                                                                            3

     146, 149 (1988). In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the
     record for enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the
     agreement is lawful on its face and whether the parties freely entered into it. See
     Massey v. Office of Personnel Management, 91 M.S.P.R. 289, ¶ 4 (2002),
     overruled on other grounds by Delorme v. Department of the Interior,
     124 M.S.P.R. 123, ¶¶ 11-21 (2017) (holding that the Board may enforce
     settlement agreements that have been entered into the record, independent of any
     prior finding of Board jurisdiction over the underlying matter being settled).
¶5         Here, we find that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement,
     understand its terms, and intend for the agreement to be entered into the record
     for enforcement by the Board. PFR File, Tab 2 at 10. In addition, we find that
     the agreement is lawful on its face and that the parties freely entered into it. Id.
     Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, we vacate the
     February 2 and February 18, 2022 initial decisions, dismiss the appeals as
     settled, and accept the settlement agreement into the record of both cases for
     enforcement by the Board. 4
¶6         We deny as moot the agency’s nunc pro tunc motion, as we are granting the
     agency’s requested relief in the instant appeals on the basis of the settlement
     agreement. Regarding the effect of the settlement agreement on MSPB Docket
     No. PH-1221-21-0330-P-1, which was dismissed without prejudice, the parties
     should follow the instructions provided in the initial decision to refile the appeal
     and petition the administrative judge for acceptance of the settlement agreement.
¶7         This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in these
     appeals. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113).

     4
       Although the parties request that the initial decisions be “rescinded an d removed from
     the case file and on the MSPB’s e-Appeal website,” PFR File, Tab 2 at 9, our
     regulations do not provide for such relief. The initial decisions are vacated by way of
     this Order and have no legal effect, but they cannot be removed from the re cord.
                                                                                      4

                     NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR
                         ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS
      If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the
agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by
promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial
decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the
petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not
been fully carried out, and should include the dates and results of any
communications between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      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.

5
  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

      (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
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
                                                                                  6

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

      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:
                                                                                      7

                            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. 6 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

6
   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

      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.
      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.