Court Opinion

ID: 9373590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:03.29853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.856082
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     GHASSAN J. GHANNOUM,                            DOCKET NUMBERS
                         Appellant,                  SF-1221-18-0723-W-2
                                                     SF-0714-19-0310-I-1
                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
       AFFAIRS,                                      DATE: July 12, 2022
                         Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Ghassan Ghannoum, Corona, California, pro se.

           Andrew Quinio, Esquire, Los Angeles, California, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has petitioned for review of the July 8, 2019 initial decision
     in his removal and individual right of action appeals, which were joined 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     processing. Ghannoum v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No.
     SF-1221-18-0723-W-2, Initial Appeal File, Tab 27, Initial Decision; Ghannoum
     v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-1221-18-0723-W-2,
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 3.         For the reasons set forth below, we
     DISMISS the joined appeals as settled.
¶2         On September 11, 2019, the appellant petitioned for review of the initial
     decision resolving the joined appeals. PFR File, Tab 3. While the petition for
     review was still pending before the Board, on May 11, 2021, the agency
     submitted a document entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,” which was
     signed and dated by the agency on May 4, 2021, and by the appellant on May 8,
     2021. 2 PFR File, Tab 7. The document provides, among other things, that the
     appellant agreed to withdraw the above-captioned appeals in exchange for the
     promises made by the agency. Id. at 6.
¶3         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.
     146, 149 (1988). In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the

     2
       On December 27, 2021, the agency filed a signed statement from the appellant
     confirming his intent to voluntarily withdraw his petition for review with prejudice and
     indicated that the agency did not object to the appellant’s request. PFR File, Tabs 9-10.
     On January 3, 2022, the Board notified the parties that, although the Clerk of the Board
     has delegated authority to grant an unopposed request to withdraw a petition for review
     when there are no issues of apparent untimeliness, the agency’s May 11, 2021
     submission reflected that the parties intended the Board to enter the settlement
     agreement into the record for enforcement. PFR File, Tab 11. The Board ordered the
     parties to confirm their intent regarding enforcement. Id. In response, the appellant
     requested that the settlement agreement be entered into the record for enforcement, and
     the agency stated that the agreement was enforceable by the Equal Employment
     Opportunity Commission, not by the Board, and that its prior request was in error. PFR
     File, Tabs 14-15. As the appellant has indicated his intent that the settlement
     agreement be entered into the record for enforcement by the Board, his petition for
     review may not be dismissed pursuant to the Clerk of the Board’s delegated authority.
                                                                                        3

     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) .
¶4        Here, we find that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and
     understand its terms. PFR File, Tab 7. We further find that the parties do not
     intend to enter the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement by the
     Board, as the agreement itself provides for enforcement through the equal
     employment opportunity procedures set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504. Id. at 6;
     see Grubb v. Department of the Interior, 76 M.S.P.R. 639, 642-43 (1997)
     (finding   that   the   parties   intended   the   Equal   Employment   Opportunity
     Commission, not the Board, to enforce a settlement agreement that provided for
     enforcement in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504). Although the appellant
     indicated that he wishes the Board to enforce the settlement agreement, PFR File,
     Tab 14 at 3, the words of the agreement itself are of paramount importance in
     determining the intent of the parties at the time they contracted.         Greco v.
     Department of the Army, 852 F.2d 558, 560 (Fed. Cir. 1988).             Accordingly,
     pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement , we find that it is enforceable
     by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, not by the Board, and we do
     not enter it into the record for enforcement.
¶5        In light of the foregoing, we find that dismissing the appeals “with
     prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile these appeals) is
     appropriate under these circumstances. 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

                           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 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.
                                                                                    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. ____ , 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
                                                                                  6

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:
                            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 a ny 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.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

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.
                                                                             8

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.