Court Opinion

ID: 9965780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 15:00:58.135067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:39.158309
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

KEERTI VARMAA,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
            Appellant,                          DC-0752-14-0732-I-4

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,                     DATE: May 2, 2024
            Agency.

           THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Keerti Varmaa , Washington, D.C., pro se.

      Julie A. Barry , Esquire, Daniel C. Carr , Esquire, and Byron D. Smalley ,
        Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                       BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
mitigated the agency’s removal action to a 30-day suspension. For the reasons
discussed below, we GRANT the agency’s petition for review, DENY the
appellant’s cross-petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and DISMISS
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                  BACKGROUND
      Effective April 28, 2014, the agency removed the appellant from her
position as a Financial Administrator and Program Specialist based on charges of
(1) discourtesy or unprofessional behavior and (2) failure to follow management
directives or instructions. Varmaa v. Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket
No. DC-0752-14-0732-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 15-21, 36-39.
She timely appealed her removal to the Board and requested a hearing.
IAF, Tab 1.      Following a hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial
decision mitigating the agency’s penalty to a 30-day suspension.            Varmaa v.
Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-14-0732-I-4, Appeal
File, Tab 17, Initial Decision (I-4 ID). The administrative judge found that the
agency proved two of the three specifications of the charge of discourtesy or
unprofessional behavior and sustained the charge.              I-4 ID at 2-12.       The
administrative    judge   also   found   that   the   agency    proved   each   of   the
five specifications of failure to follow management directives or instructions and
sustained the charge. I-4 ID at 12-20. According to the administrative judge, the
appellant failed to prove her affirmative defenses of discrimination on the bases
of race, color, sex, or national origin; retaliation for prior protected equal
employment opportunity activity; or retaliation for filing grievances.           I -4 ID
at 20-38. The administrative judge further found that the appellant proved that
the agency had committed procedural error but had failed to show that the error
was harmful, and she did not prove her allegations that the agency violated her
due process rights. I-4 ID at 38-54. Next, the administrative judge found that
there was a nexus between the charged misconduct and the efficiency of the
service.   I-4 ID at 54-55.      Finally, the administrative judge found that the
deciding official had failed to properly weigh the relevant factors in imposing the
penalty of removal, and she found that a 30-day suspension was the maximum
reasonable penalty for the sustained misconduct; accordingly, she mitigated the
agency’s penalty to a 30-day suspension. I-4 ID at 56-63.
                                                                                        3

      The agency filed a petition for review of the initial decision in which it
argued that it had discovered that the appellant was a reemployed annuitant at the
time of her removal and was not entitled to appeal her removal to the Board; thus,
the Board should dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Petition for Review
(PFR) File, Tab 1 at 7-8. Alternatively, the agency argued that the administrative
judge erred in mitigating the penalty.         Id. at 8-28.    The appellant filed an
opposition to the agency’s petition for review and a cross-petition for review in
which she argued, collectively, that the Board should retain jurisdiction over the
appeal in the interests of judicial efficiency, that mitigation of the penalty was
proper, and that the administrative judge erred in finding that the appellant did
not prove her affirmative defense of retaliation for filing grievances. PFR File,
Tab 7. The agency responded to the appellant’s opposition and cross -petition. 2
PFR File, Tabs 8, 11.
      The Acting Clerk of the Board issued an order directing the appellant to
show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PFR File, Tab 16. In her response to the order, the appellant has conceded that
she was a reemployed annuitant at the time of her removal but renews her
argument that the Board should retain jurisdiction over the appeal in the interests
of judicial efficiency. 3    PFR File, Tab 17 at 4.           The agency opposes the
appellant’s request for the Board to retain jurisdiction over this matter. PFR File,
Tab 19 at 5-7.

2
  The appellant also filed a request for leave to file a reply to the agency’s response to
the appellant’s cross-petition for review. PFR File, Tab 14. The appellant requested
leave to respond to the agency’s argument that if the deciding official sustained a
charge without knowing it to be true, the fact does not per se indicate retaliatory
motive. Id. at 4. Because we find that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appeal and
dismiss it, the appellant’s motion is denied.
3
 The appellant also filed a motion to dismiss the agency’s petition for review on the
basis that the agency had failed to fully comply with the interim relief order. PFR File,
Tab 18. The agency has responded in opposition to the motion. PFR File, Tab 20.
Again, because the Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal, the appellant’s
motion is denied.
                                                                                  4

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      Generally, the Board will not consider evidence or argument submitted for
the first time on review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the record
closed despite the party’s due diligence, but the issue of the Board’s jurisdiction
is always before the Board and may be raised by either party, or sua sponte by the
Board, at any time during a Board proceeding. Simnitt v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 313, ¶ 5 (2010); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115.
      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).        Under 5 U.S.C.
§ 3323(b)(1), an annuitant, as defined by section 8331 or 8401 of Title 5, is not
barred by reason of her retired status from employment in an appointive position
for which she is qualified. An annuitant so reemployed, however, serves at the
will of the appointing authority. 5 U.S.C. § 3323(b)(1); see Vesser v. Office of
Personnel Management, 29 F.3d 600, 604 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Garza v. Department
of the Navy, 119 M.S.P.R. 91, ¶ 7 (2012). Generally, such an employee has no
right to appeal an adverse action to the Board. Garza, 119 M.S.P.R. 91, ¶ 7.
      On review, the agency submitted three Standard Form 50s (SF-50s)
reflecting the appellant’s status as a reemployed annuitant.      PFR File, Tab 1
at 54-56. In particular, the appellant’s July 2007 SF-50 reflects that the agency
provided the appellant with career reinstatement to the position of Financial
Administrator and Program Specialist and designated her as a reemployed
annuitant. Id. at 54. The appellant’s April 2014 SF-50 effecting her removal also
reflected that she was a reemployed annuitant. Id. at 56; IAF, Tab 5 at 15. The
agency also provided verification from the Office of Personnel Management that
the appellant began receiving an annuity in June 2007 and continued to receive it
through December 2017. PFR File, Tab 6 at 9. The appellant has conceded that
she is a reemployed annuitant and does not have the right to appeal an adverse
action to the Board. PFR File, Tab 17 at 4. Accordingly, we conclude that the
                                                                                      5

appellant is a reemployed annuitant and that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the
instant appeal.
      The appellant nevertheless argues that the Board should retain jurisdiction
over her appeal in the interests of judicial efficiency. PFR File, Tab 7 at 4-6,
Tab 17 at 4.      She contends that she will refile her claims before the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, which will require the relitigation of her
claims before the Board. PFR File, Tab 7 at 5. The case the appellant cites in
support of her argument, Johnson v. Department of Defense, 95 M.S.P.R. 192
(2003), does not support her contention that the Board may retain jurisdiction
over the instant matter. PFR File, Tab 7 at 5-6. In Johnson, the Board concluded
that the appellant had failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that her alleged
disclosures were a contributing factor in her termination and dismissed her
individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Johnson, 95 M.S.P.R.
192, ¶¶ 10-12. Additionally, the Board in Johnson concluded that the posture of
the appeal presented unique circumstances such that the Board made alternative
findings in order to inform its reviewing court “of what we would find on the
merits if we had jurisdiction over this appeal in the event the appellant seeks
court review and the court disagrees with our jurisdictional findings.”             Id.,
¶¶ 12-13. We do not find that such unique circumstances are present here and, in
dismissing this matter for lack of jurisdiction, decline to make alternative
findings on the merits of the appeal.

                         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

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

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.
      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
                                                                                    7

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
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,
                                                                                      8

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. 5   The court of appeals must receive your petition for

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,
                                                                                  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 warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

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