Court Opinion

ID: 9964304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 17:00:56.931878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:17.616484
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ANDREW D. FARIS,                                DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         CH-0752-20-0205-I-1

             v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: April 26, 2024
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Andrew D. Faris , Indianapolis, Indiana, pro se.

      Alison D. Alvarez , Esquire, Chicago, Illinois, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his appeal of an agency action removing him for violating a last chance
agreement (LCA) for lack of jurisdiction. 2 On petition for review, the appellant
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 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
  As the agency observed below, it appears that the appellant prematurely filed his
Board appeal. See Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 8 at 15 n.1. The removal decision is
dated February 3, 2020, with an effective date of February 14, 2020. Id. at 67-69. The
appellant electronically filed his Board appeal on February 1, 2020, prior to the
February 14, 2020 effective date, and therefore his Board appeal was prematurely filed
                                                                                        2

argues that the LCA is a one-sided unconscionable contract, that he was denied
due process by the agency’s removal decision, and that his supervisors removed
him in retaliation for his union activity. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at
4. The appellant also challenges the merits of the agency’s November 20, 2019
absence without leave (AWOL) determination. 3 Id. Finally, the appellant asserts
that his last day worked was January 3, 2020, not February 3, 2020, and he
provides copies of a number of earnings statements for the period from March
2019 through September 2019, along with a copy of a 14-day suspension dated
February 27, 2019. Id. at 4-36. However, the appellant has not challenged the
administrative judge’s findings that the Board lacks jurisdiction over this appeal
because the appellant waived his Board appeal rights in the LCA, and that waiver
of appeal rights was valid and enforceable. See Initial Appeal File, Tab 9, Initial
Decision (ID) at 8. 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

by 13 days. See Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. Nevertheless, “[t]he Board’s practice
is to adjudicate an appeal that was premature when filed but becomes timely while
pending before the Board.” Wooten v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 96 M.S.P.R.
671, ¶ 9 (2004). Accordingly, any error by the administrative judge in failing to
dismiss the appeal was harmless because the appeal had become ripe for adjudication
upon the effective date of the removal, 13 days after the appeal was filed, and while the
appeal remained pending before the Board. See Gutierrez v. Department of the
Treasury, 99 M.S.P.R. 141, ¶ 3 n.1 (2005) (concluding that a premature probationary
termination appeal became timely upon the effective date of the termination); Groshans
v. Department of the Navy, 67 M.S.P.R. 629, 632-33 n.2 (1995) (determining that a
premature removal appeal became ripe for adjudication upon the effective date of the
removal).
3
  As the agency notes in its response, the initial decision refers to 3.41 hours of AWOL,
instead of the 3.51 hours identified in the removal decision letter, which appears to be a
typographical error. PFR File, Tab 3 at 7 n.1; IAF, Tab 9, Initial Decision at 3, 6. This
typographical error is inadvertent, and this misstatement was harmless and did not
affect the outcome of the decision in any way. See Panter v. Department of the Air
Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding that an adjudicatory error that was not
prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provided no basis for reversal of an initial
decision).
                                                                                     3

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, we conclude that the petitioner has not
established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
      Regarding the appellant’s argument, raised for the first time on review, that
the LCA was unconscionable and one-sided, as the administrative judge noted
below, the appellant received consideration from the agency in the form of the
opportunity to remedy his attendance issues and retain his position in lieu of
removal.   ID at 7; see Tetrault v. U.S. Postal Service, 71 M.S.P.R. 376, 380
(1996) (noting that consideration for an appellant’s waiver of his appeal rights
can include an agency’s agreement to reduce a removal to a suspension, or its
holding of a removal in abeyance for a period of time); Romano v. U.S. Postal
Service, 49 M.S.P.R. 319, 322 (1991) (finding valid consideration for waiver of
the appellant’s Board appeal right in the agency’s agreement to reduce the earlier
removal action to a suspension).
      With respect to the earnings statements for the period from March 2019
through September 2019 and the copy of a 14-day suspension dated
February 27, 2019 that the appellant submitted with his petition for review, the
Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for the first time on review
absent a showing that: (1) the documents and the information contained in the
documents were unavailable before the record closed despite due diligence;
and (2) the evidence is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from
that of the initial decision. Carson v. Department of Energy, 109 M.S.P.R. 213,
¶ 21 (2008), aff’d, 357 F. App’x 293 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Avansino v. U.S. Postal
Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d); see PFR File, Tab 1
                                                                                    4

at 4-36. All of the submitted documents predate the appellant’s February 1, 2020
appeal and thus are not new.      See Okello v. Office of Personnel Management,
112 M.S.P.R. 563, ¶ 10 (2009) (noting that under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d),
the Board will not consider evidence submitted for the first time with a petition
for   review     absent   a   showing   that   it   is   both   new   and   material);
Avansino, 3 M.S.P.R. at 214.      The appellant also has not explained how the
submitted documents are material to the jurisdictional matter at issue in this
appeal, so we have not considered them. See Russo v. Veterans Administration,
3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980).
      Regarding the appellant’s arguments that he was denied due process and
that agency officials retaliated against him based on his union activity, because
the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appellant’s appeal of his removal due to the
valid waiver of appeal rights in the LCA, it has no authority to consider the
merits of any potential affirmative defenses raised by the appellant, such as his
due process and retaliation claims. See Martin v. Department of Defense,
70 M.S.P.R. 653, 657 (1996); Wren v. Department of the Army, 2 M.S.P.R. 1, 2
(1980), aff’d, 681 F.2d 867, 871-73 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
      Finally, the appellant contends that he was sick on the day he was charged
with AWOL and alleges that, although he provided a doctor’s note, it was denied
by his supervisor and he was charged with AWOL instead of being marked tardy.
PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. The appellant did not raise this argument below and thus
we need not consider it. See Clay v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245,
¶ 6 (2016) (noting that the Board generally will not consider an argument raised
for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new
and material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence);
Banks v. Department of the Air Force , 4 M.S.P.R. 268, 271 (1980) (same);
5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d).       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).
                                                                                          5

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
      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:

4
  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

                             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
                                                                                  7

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
                                                                                      8

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. 5   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.

5
   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.
                                                                        9

      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.