Court Opinion

ID: 9946935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 20:00:13.608492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:43.632229
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

WILLIE R. SANTIAGO,                             DOCKET NUMBER
               Appellant,                       SF-0752-21-0084-I-1

             v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: February 29, 2024
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Willie R. Santiago , Pahoa, Hawaii, pro se.

      Sara Adibisedeh , Esquire, San Francisco, California, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his 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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 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).
      The appellant argues that the administrative judge erred in determining that
his start date was November 10, 2018, the date he was converted to a career
position. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3. Rather, he argues, his start
date for purposes of jurisdiction should be either the day his hiring was
announced, July 30, 2018, or the date when he first started in a temporary
position with the agency, August 18, 2018. Id. Without making a determination,
we find that, even using the appellant’s argued start dates, he has failed to
establish jurisdiction over his appeal.
      A U.S. Postal Service employee may file a Board appeal under chapter 75
of Title 5 of the U.S. Code only if he is covered by 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a) or
5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B).    See 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(8); Gordon-Cureton v. U.S.
Postal Service, 105 M.S.P.R. 165, ¶ 6 (2007). Thus, as correctly stated by the
administrative judge, to appeal an adverse action under chapter 75, a U.S. Postal
Service employee must meet the following criteria: (1) be a preference eligible, a
management or supervisory employee, or an employee engaged in personnel work
in other than a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity; and (2) have completed
1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions.      Initial
Appeal File (IAF), Tab 11, Initial Decision (ID) at 4; Gordon-Cureton,
105 M.S.P.R. 165, ¶ 6.
                                                                                 3

      Here, it is undisputed that the appellant is not preference eligible. IAF,
Tab 1 at 1, 6, 27.     Furthermore, the appellant was a Sales and Services
Distribution Associate and has not alleged that he was a management or
supervisory employee, or an employee engaged in personnel work in other than a
purely nonconfidential clerical capacity. Id. at 1, 3, 6, 27. Further still, even
using the earliest start date as argued by the appellant, July 30, 2018, he has not
demonstrated that he completed 1 year of current continuous service prior to his
separation on February 6, 2019. Id. at 3, 5. The appellant’s alleged start dates,
argued seemingly in attempt to establish that he was no longer a probationary
employee, do not affect this analysis.        Accordingly, we agree with the
administrative judge that the appellant failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation
that he was a U.S. Postal Service employee entitled to appeal his removal under
5 U.S.C. chapter 75. ID at 4-5.
      The appellant additionally argues the merits of his separation and asserts
discrimination based on age and ethnic origin. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-9. In the
absence of an otherwise appealable action, the Board lacks jurisdiction to
consider the merits of the appellant’s separation or his claims of discrimination.
See Burton v. Department of the Air Force, 118 M.S.P.R. 210, ¶ 16 (2012)
(recognizing that the Board lacks authority to address the merits of an appeal
without first finding jurisdiction); Hicks v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 M.S.P.R.
232, ¶ 13 (2010) (finding the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider claims of
discrimination absent an otherwise appealable action).        The appellant also
submits alleged new evidence on review, further arguing the merits of his
separation and in attempt to establish his argued start date.    PFR File, Tab 1
at 11-39.   As discussed above, these issues are immaterial to the issue of the
Board’s jurisdiction and thus we decline to consider them on review. See Russo
v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980) (finding the Board will
not grant a petition for review based on new evidence absent a showing that it is
                                                                                          4

of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial
decision).

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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:
2
  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. 3 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.

3
   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

      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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.