Court Opinion

ID: 9556392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 06:00:22.34239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:55.256631
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     KARL MUEGO,                                     DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  PH-3330-22-0069-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,                            DATE: August 16, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Darius Rohani-Shukla, Esquire, and Debra D’Agostino, Esquire,
             Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

           Channah S. Broyde, Esquire, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the agency.

           Karen Modesta Barefield, Esquire, Arlington, Virginia, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     granted the appellant’s request for corrective action in his Veterans Employment
     Opportunities Act (VEOA) appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the agency’s petition for review and VACATE and REVERSE the initial decision,
     finding that the appellant was not entitled to corrective action under VEOA.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2          The appellant, a preference eligible employed with another Federal agency,
     applied for a position with the responding agency in this appeal. Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 8 at 159-60, 188, 215. The agency accepted applications from
     outside its workforce and used merit promotion procedures to fill the vacancy.
     Id. at 30, 277. The agency did not include the appellant on its initial certificate of
     eligibles for the vacancy based on its determination that he did not meet the
     position’s specialized experience requirements. Id. at 76-77. After the agency
     informed him of this determination, the appellant filed a complaint with the
     Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) alleging that the agency’s
     determination constituted a veterans’ preference issue. Id. at 173-75.
¶3          In response to the appellant’s VETS complaint, the agency reassessed the
     appellant’s application, determined that he did meet the specialized experience
     requirements for the position, and amended the certificate of eligibles to include
     him.    Id. at 67, 184-85.     However, the agency did not refer the appellant’s
     application to any hiring manager or selecting official for consideration . IAF,
     Tab 20, Hearing Recording (testimony of the human resources liaison).                The
     appellant was informed of his nonselection for the position and filed a second
     VETS complaint. 2 IAF, Tab 1 at 7-10. VETS issued the appellant a close-out
     letter, IAF, Tab 8 at 66, and the appellant timely filed an appeal with the Board,
     IAF, Tab 1.
            After holding a hearing, the administrative judge granted the appellant’s
     request for corrective action, finding that the agency violated his right to compete

     2
       VETS previously issued the appellant a letter stating that his first complaint was being
     closed as prematurely filed and informing him that he could file a new complaint after a
     selection had been made. IAF, Tab 8 at 16
                                                                                        3

     as a preference eligible for a vacancy for which it was accepting applications
     outside its workforce under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1). IAF, Tab 21, Initial Decision
     (ID) at 12-13. The administrative judge thus ordered the agency to reconstruct
     the hiring action for the vacancy announcement. ID at 13. The agency filed a
     petition for review, to which the appellant has responded. Petition for Review
     File, Tabs 2, 4.

     The appellant was not entitled to corrective action under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1).
¶4         The Board’s regulations reserve to it the authority to consider any issue in
     an appeal before it. McClenning v. Department of the Army, 2022 MSPB 3, ¶ 16;
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(e). Thus, although not raised by the agency, we exercise our
     authority to consider whether the administrative judge erred by granting
     corrective action.
¶5         In Kerner v. Department of the Interior, 778 F.3d 1336, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir.
     2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit)
     concluded, based on a review of the statute’s text and legislative history, that
     5 U.S.C. § 3304 does not apply when a veteran or other preference-eligible
     applicant is already employed in the Federal civil service. The Federal Circuit
     found instead that VEOA is intended to assist veterans in gaining access to
     Federal employment, not to give veterans preference in merit promotions.
     Kerner, 778 F.3d at 1338. Because the appellant was a Federal employee when
     he applied for the agency position, IAF, Tab 8 at 188, 215, according to Kerner,
     he was not entitled to an opportunity to compete for that position under 5 U.S.C.
     § 3304(f)(1).      Thus, the agency did not commit a VEOA violation , and the
     administrative judge erred by granting corrective action.
                                                                                          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. 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. 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
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

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