Court Opinion

ID: 9373751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:07.674824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.172851
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ERIN STERN,                                     DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  NY-1221-19-0193-C-1

                  v.

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

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Eric Lee Siegel, Esquire and Evan M. Lisull, Esquire, Washington, D.C.,
             for the appellant.

           Marcus S. Graham, Esquire, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the compliance initial
     decision, which denied her petition for enforcement.            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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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, w e 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 compliance initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision.
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
¶2        In the underlying individual right of action (IRA) appeal, the appellant
     alleged that the agency took several personnel actions in reprisal for her protected
     disclosures and activities.    Stern v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB
     Docket No. NY-1221-19-0193-W-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 6. After
     holding a hearing, the administrative judge granted the appellant’s request for
     corrective action in part.    IAF, Tab 103, Initial Decision (ID).      Specifically,
     the administrative judge found although the agency proved by clear and
     convincing evidence that it would have taken several of the alleged personnel
     actions in the absence of the appellant’s protected disclosures and activities, it
     failed to meet its burden as to the appellant’s proposed removal. ID at 11-32.
     However, she did not order any remedial action regarding the proposed removal
     because the agency had already rescinded the proposal. ID at 33. Neither party
     filed a petition for review of the initial decision on the merits of the appeal,
     which therefore became the final decision of the Board on May 19, 2020. 2

     2
      After the initial decision became final, the appellant filed an appeal with the U.S.
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding one of her claims. The court
                                                                                          3

¶3         On September 15, 2020, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement of the
     Board’s final decision on the merits of her IRA appeal. Stern v. Department of
     Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. NY-1221-19-0193-C-1, Compliance File
     (CF), Tab 1. In her petition, she sought an order from the Board requiring the
     agency to confirm that it had imposed discipline in accordance with 38 U.S.C.
     § 731 3 and to identify the supervisor(s) whom it had disciplined.       Id. at 5. In
     response to the appellant’s petition for enforcement, the agency argued th at the
     Board had not ordered it to take disciplinary action under section 731. CF, Tab 3.
     After giving the parties an opportunity to address the relevant legal issues,
     CF, Tab 6, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision
     dismissing the appellant’s petition for enforcement for lack of jurisdiction,
     CF, Tab 11, Compliance Initial Decision (CID). She determined that the Board
     could not order the agency to take disciplinary action in a compliance proceeding
     when the underlying Board order did not require any disciplinary action. Id. at 3.
     She further determined that the Board lacks independent jurisdiction to enforce
     38 U.S.C. § 731. CID at 3-4.
¶4         The appellant has filed a timely petition for review of the compliance initial
     decision. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. She requests an order pursuant
     to 5 U.S.C. § 1221(f)(3) referring the Board’s finding of a prohibited personnel
     practice to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Id. at 5. She also argues that
     the administrative judge could have reopened the merits appeal to order
     corrective action in the form of discipline, and she notes that she included

     affirmed the Board’s decision. Stern v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 859 F. App’x
     569 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
     The appellant also filed motions for damages and attorney fees. Stern v. Department of
     Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket Nos. NY-1221-19-0193-P-1 & NY-1221-19-0193-A-1.
     Those motions were addressed in separate addendum initial decisions an d are not before
     the Board in this matter.
     3
       In relevant part, 38 U.S.C. § 731 requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry
     out adverse actions against supervisory employees whom the Board d etermines
     committed certain prohibited personnel practices. 38 U.S.C. § 731(a)(1).
                                                                                        4

     discipline in the corrective action she sought before the administrative judge.
     Id. at 6-7; IAF, Tab 94 at 6-7. The agency has responded in opposition to the
     petition for review, PFR File, Tab 3, and the appellant has filed a reply, PFR File,
     Tab 4.
¶5         We agree with the administrative judge that the Board lacks jurisdiction
     over the appellant’s petition for enforcement regardin g discipline of supervisory
     employees. The Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary; it is limited to those matters
     over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule or regulation . Maddox v.
     Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The Board has
     statutory authority to “order any Federal agency or employee to comply with any
     order or decision issued by the Board . . . and enforce compliance with any such
     order.” 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(2). Thus, the Board’s enforcement power is limited
     to actions it has ordered in the underlying appeal. Here, the administrative judge
     did not order any remedial action for the proposed removal because the agency
     had already rescinded it. ID at 33. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Board
     to order any action regarding the discipline of supervisory employees in
     a proceeding to enforce the decision on the merits in this appeal.
¶6         To the extent the appellant argues that the initial decision should have
     included an order to take disciplinary action, we disagree.       The scope of the
     corrective action available in an IRA appeal is defined by statute. Specifically,
     under 5 U.S.C. § 1221, corrective action in an IRA appeal may include status quo
     ante relief, “back pay and related benefits, medical costs incurred, tra vel
     expenses, any other reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages, and
     compensatory damages.” 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A). Attorney fees and costs are
     also included as part of corrective action in an IRA appeal.                5 U.S.C.
     § 1221(g)(1)(B).
¶7         The Board has a statutory role in disciplining employees for whistleblower
     reprisal, but that role is quite limited. If the Board determines, base d on evidence
     presented to it in an IRA appeal, that an employee may have committed a
                                                                                             5

     prohibited personnel practice, it shall refer the matter to OSC to investigate and
     take appropriate action. 5 U.S.C. § 1221(f)(3). 4 If OSC determines disciplinary
     action is appropriate, it may present a complaint to the Board.                5 U.S.C.
     § 1215(a)(1). After adjudicating the complaint, the Board may issue a final order
     imposing disciplinary action.       5 U.S.C. § 1215(a)(3)(A)(i).        Thus, although
     Congress did authorize the Board to order disciplinary action against employees
     who commit prohibited personnel practices, it did not authorize discipline as part
     of the corrective action ordered in an IRA appeal.
¶8         The appellant correctly notes that 38 U.S.C. § 731 requires the Secretary of
     Veterans Affairs to take disciplinary action against employees whom the Board
     (among other entities) determines has committed certain prohibited personnel
     actions. However, the Board has no statutory role in imposing such discipline
     other than possibly making the underlying determination. 38 U.S.C. § 731(a)(1).
     We find no support for the proposition that the Board has jurisdiction to enforce
     section 731.
¶9         Accordingly, we agree with the administrative judg e that the Board lacks
     jurisdiction over the appellant’s petition for enforcement and we therefore affirm
     the compliance initial decision.

                               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

     4
       As an alternative to an order to the agency regarding discipline, the appellant requests
     that the Board issue the notice to OSC contemplated under 5 U.S.C. § 1221(f)(3). PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 5. Such notice is not part of the corrective action available in an IRA
     appeal and is therefore not properly the subject of a petition for enforcement. However,
     we note that the Clerk of the Board did provide such notice to OSC by letter dated
     June 11, 2020. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of that letter to the appellant
     when issuing this decision.
     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.
                                                                                         6

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:
                              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.
                                                                                    7

      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
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
                                                                                  8

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
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

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
                                                                                      9

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 war rants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

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.
                                                                       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:                                  /s/ for
                                        Jennifer Everling
                                        Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.