Court Opinion

ID: 9388183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 21:00:14.765178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:18.616680
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     RONNIE MONTGOMERY,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          AT-0752-20-0275-I-3

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: April 19, 2023
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Peggy Lee, Esquire, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant.

           Eric B. Fryda, Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for the agency.

           James M. Reed, Esquire, Clearwater, Florida, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     (1) reversed his placement on enforced leave, (2) found that he proved his
     affirmative defense of union reprisal, (3) found that he failed to prove his
     affirmative defenses of disability discrimination, reprisal based on equal

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     employment opportunity (EEO) activity, harmful procedural error, and violation
     of his due process rights, (4) dismissed his claim arising under the Family and
     Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for lack of jurisdiction , and (5) dismissed his race
     discrimination claim as untimely raised.         For the reasons discussed below,
     we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review. We AFFIRM the administrative
     judge’s reversal of the enforced leave action and the following findings:
     the appellant proved his affirmative defense of reprisal for union activity;
     the appellant failed to prove his affirmative defenses of disability discrimination,
     EEO reprisal, harmful procedural error, and violation of due process rights;
     and the   Board    lacks   jurisdiction   over   the   appellant’s   FMLA      claims.
     We VACATE the finding that the appellant failed to timely raise an affirmative
     defense of race discrimination, and we REMAND the appeal to the regional
     office for further adjudication of that defense in accordance with this Remand
     Order.

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         On March 16, 2022, the administrative judge issued the initial decision in
     this matter. Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-20-
     0275-I-3, Appeal File (0275 I-3 AF), Tab 17, Initial Decision (0275 ID). 2

     2
       This appeal was dismissed without prejudice and refiled twice. Hereinafter, the
     appellant’s first appeal file, Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No.
     AT-0752-20-0275-I-1, will be referred to as the Initial Appeal File (0275 IAF); the
     refiled appeal file, Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-20-
     0275-I-2, will be referred to as the I-2 Appeal File (0275 I-2 AF); and the second
     refiled appeal file, Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-20-
     0275-I-3, will be referred to as the I-3 Appeal File (0275 I-3 AF).
     The appellant has a second appeal concerning his claim that the agency violated his
     rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemploym ent Rights Act of
     1994 (USERRA). That appeal was dismissed without prejudice and refiled twice.
     Hereinafter, the appellant’s first appeal file in the USERRA matter, Montgomery v. U.S.
     Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-4324-20-0730-I-1, will be referred to as the
     Initial Appeal File (0730 IAF); the refiled appeal file in the USERRA matter,
     Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-4324-20-0730-I-2, will be
     referred to as the I-2 Appeal File (0730 I-2 AF); and the second refiled appeal file,
                                                                                              3

     The initial decision explained that it would become final on April 20, 2022,
     unless a petition for review was filed by that date. Id. at 19. Neither party filed
     a petition for review by that date; however, 21 days later, on May 11, 2022,
     the appellant filed this petition for review, wherein he asserted the following:
     (1) the administrative judge erred in finding that the appellant did not timely
     raise his affirmative defense of race discrimination; and (2) the administrative
     judge erred in dismissing his claims arising under the FMLA and the Wounded
     Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015 (WWFLA) for lack of jurisdiction.
     Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-20-0275-I-3,
     Petition for Review (0275 PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5-8. The agency has not filed a
     response. 3

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     We find good cause to waive the filing deadline for the appellant’s petition for
     review, which was untimely by 21 days.
¶3         The appellant’s petition for review is untimely by 21 days. See 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(e) (providing that a petition for review must generally be filed within
     35 days of issuance of the initial decision).         The Board will waive its filing
     deadline only upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(g). To determine whether an appellant has shown good cause for the
     untimely filing of an appeal, the Board will consider the length of the delay,
     the reasonableness of his excuse and his showing of due diligence, whether he is

     Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-4324-20-0730-I-3, will be
     referred to as the I-3 Appeal File (0730 I-3 AF).
     3
       After the close of the record on review, the appellant filed a pleading titled, “Petition
     for Enforcement of Interim Relief.” 0275 PFR File, Tab 4. The agency has filed a
     response, and the appellant has filed a reply. 0275 PFR File, Tabs 5-6. The appellant’s
     petition for enforcement is denied because the Board’s regulations do not allow for a
     petition for enforcement of an interim relief order. Bryant v. Department of the Army,
     2022 MSPB 1, ¶ 6. If the appellant believes that the agency is not in compliance with
     this Order, he may file a petition for enforcement with the regional office in accordance
     with ¶ 15.
                                                                                     4

     proceeding pro se, and whether he has presented evidence of the existence of
     circumstances beyond his control that affected his ability to comply with the
     time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune which similarly shows a
     causal relationship to his inability to timely file his petition.    Moorman v.
     Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed.
     Cir. 1996) (Table).
¶4        We find that the appellant has established good cause for his untimely
     filing.   Although it appears that he was confused about Board procedures,
     he acted diligently in pursuing this petition for review, as set forth herein.
     On February 12, 2020, the appellant filed a Board appeal concerning his
     placement on enforced leave.     0275 IAF, Tab 1 at 3, 9-11.     The appeal was
     dismissed without prejudice and then refiled in August 2020.        0275 I-2 AF,
     Tab 1. In his refiled appeal, the appellant asserted that the agency violated his
     rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
     of 1994 (USERRA). Id. at 5. The administrative judge docketed the USERRA
     appeal under a separate docket number.        0730 IAF, Tab 1.       This appeal,
     concerning the enforced leave action, and the second appeal, alleging that the
     agency violated the appellant’s USERRA rights, were pending before the
     administrative judge simultaneously.        On March 2 and 3, 2022,            the
     administrative judge conducted a joint hearing on both appeals and, on
     March 16, 2022, he issued a separate initial decision in each matter. 0275 ID;
     0730-I-3 AF, Tab 20, Initial Decision (0730 ID).          Both initial decisions
     contained a notice stating that the decisions would become final on April 20,
     2022, unless a petition for review was filed on or before that date. 0730 ID at 8;
     0275 ID at 19.
¶5        On April 20, 2022, the appellant filed a request for an extension of time to
     file a petition for review of the initial decision finding that the agency did not
     violate his USERRA rights. Montgomery v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
     No. AT-4324-20-0730-I-3, Petition for Review (0730 PFR) File, Tab 1.          His
                                                                                        5

     request was granted by the Clerk of the Board (Clerk). 0730 PFR File, Tab 2.
     The appellant did not request an extension of time to file a petition for review of
     the initial decision reversing his placement on enforced leave and ruling on his
     affirmative defenses.
¶6        In accordance with the Clerk’s extension order, on April 26, 2022, the
     appellant timely filed a petition for review of the initial decision finding that the
     agency did not violate his USERRA rights. 0730 PFR File, Tab 3. The petition
     for review bore the docket numbers for both the USERRA appeal and the
     enforced leave appeal, and it contained argument relevant to both appeals.
     Id. at 5-11. On April 26, 2022, the Clerk issued a letter informing the appellant
     that the appeals had not been joined and, if the appellant wished to file a petition
     for review of the initial decision that reversed his placement on enforced leave ,
     he must either file a notice with the Clerk regarding his intent to construe the
     petition for review under both docket numbers or file a separate petition
     for review in the enforced leave appeal.        0730 PFR File, Tab 4 at 1 n.*.
     On May 11, 2022, the appellant filed the instant petition for review, wherein
     he repeated arguments that were already raised in the petition for review that
     was filed in the USERRA matter.             Compare 0275 PFR File, Tab 1,
     with 0730 PFR File, Tab 3.
¶7        When, as here, an appellant asserts that he has delayed filing a petition for
     review due to confusion, the Board has held that the confusion must relate to a
     specific ambiguity in the instructions he received or in Board procedure. Noble
     v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 59, 63 (1997).         Based on the record, it
     appears that the appellant was confused about the requirement to file a separate
     petition for review concerning each initial decision and that he intended his
     April 26, 2022 petition for review, which was filed in the USERRA matter, to
     apply to both appeals.    0730 PFR File, Tab 3.       After the Clerk notified the
     appellant that it was construing his April 26, 2022 petition for review as
     applying only to the USERRA appeal, the appellant filed a petition for review of
                                                                                           6

     the initial decision reversing the enforced leave action. 0275 PFR File, Tab 1.
     The petition for review in the enforced leave appeal repeats arguments that the
     appellant already raised in the April 26, 2022 petition for review. Compare 0275
     PFR File, Tab 1, with 0730 PFR File, Tab 3. We note that the April 26, 2022
     petition for review was timely filed in accordance with the Clerk’s extension
     order, and we find it is plausible that the appellant believed that the extension
     request applied to both appeals. 0730 PFR File, Tabs 1-4. We have considered
     that the appellant indicated he was acting pro se at the time of filing his petition
     for review and the agency has not filed a brief in opposition to the appellant’s
     petition for review or alleged any prejudice to its substantive rights arising out of
     any filing delay. See Moorman, 68 M.S.P.R. at 62-63. Accordingly, we find that
     good cause exists to waive the filing deadline.

     We remand this appeal for consideration of the appellant’s affirmative defense of
     race discrimination.
¶8         On review, the appellant asserts that the administrative judge did
     not adjudicate his affirmative defense of race discrimination. 0275 PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 5-6.    In the initial decision, the administrative judge noted that the
     appellant submitted evidence related to a race discrimination claim, but he found
     that the appellant had failed to raise the claim prior to or during the prehearing
     conference and effectively dismissed the claim as untimely. 0275 ID at 11 n.8
     (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 1201.24(b) (stating that an appellant may not raise
     an affirmative defense for the first time after the prehearing conference, except
     for good cause shown)). We disagree. The appellant included reference to race
     discrimination in both his initial appeal and in his prehearing submissions.
     0275 IAF, Tab 1 at 15; 0275 I-3 AF, Tab 8 at 5. Accordingly, we find that the
     appellant timely raised an affirmative defense of race discrimi nation and remand
     is warranted to adjudicate this claim. 4       Alarid v. Department of the Army,

     4
       Although we acknowledge that the administrative judge found that the appellant’s
     evidence concerning his race discrimination claim app eared to be altered, 0275 ID at 11
                                                                                         7

     122 M.S.P.R. 600, ¶ 7 (2015) (finding that remand was warranted for
     adjudication of affirmative defenses that were timely raised during the
     proceedings but were not considered at the hearing).
¶9        Although not raised by the appellant is his petition for review, we note that
     his second refiled appeal contains additional affirmative defenses that were not
     adjudicated by the administrative judge, including sex discrimination, retaliation
     for reporting unsafe working conditions, and alleged violations of the collective
     bargaining agreement. 0275 I-3 AF, Tab 1 at 7-12. Pursuant to Thurman v. U.S.
     Postal Service, 2022 MSPB 21, ¶ 18, we find that the appellant has abandoned
     these claims for the following reasons: (1) he provided little to no argument in
     support of these defenses in his refiled appeal or in any other filing; (2) there is
     no evidence that the appellant continued to pursue these defenses after raising
     them in his second refiled appeal, and he did not raise them in his prehearing
     submission, 0275 I-3 AF, Tab 8; (3) the appellant did not object to the
     administrative judge’s prehearing conference orders, which did no t list these
     affirmative defenses, 0275 I-2 AF, Tab 9 at 2-7; 0275 I-3 AF, Tab 9 at 2-5;
     (4) the appellant did not raise these issues in his petition for review; (5) the
     appellant was represented throughout the course of the appeal, up to,
     and including at, the hearing; and (6) there is no evidence in the record that the
     appellant was confused about abandonment of these claims. Sparse information
     regarding a potential affirmative defense, like the appellant provided in his
     second refiled appeal, amounts to little more than a pro forma allegation of

     n.8, remand is required in any event because the appellant was not advised of his
     burden and methods of proof for proving an affirmative defense of race discrimination.
     See Wynn v. U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 146, ¶¶ 12-13 (2010) (holding that,
     when an administrative judge does not inform the parties of their burden and methods
     of proof, the Board must remand the appeal so that the administrative judge can afford
     such notice and an opportunity to submit evidence and argument) , overruled in part on
     other grounds by Thurman v. U.S. Postal Service, 2022 MSPB 21.
                                                                                       8

      wrongdoing, which supports a finding of abandonment.                See Thurman,
      2022 MSPB 21, ¶ 19.

      We affirm the administrative judge’s finding that the Board lacks jurisdiction
      over the appellant’s FMLA claims.
  ¶10      The appellant also argues on review that the agency denied him the
      ability to use “paid medical leave” pursuant to the FMLA and the WWFLA.
      0275 PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-8. Regarding the WWFLA, the administrative judge
      noted in the initial decision in the appellant’s USERRA appeal that the appellant
      failed to present evidence that the agency denied a request for leave pursuant to
      the WWFLA.         0730 ID at 7.         As to the appellant’s FMLA claim,
      the administrative judge correctly noted the appellant may invoke the FMLA as a
      defense to a leave-related action, such as a charge of absent without leave ,
      but alleged FMLA violations are not an independent cause of action before the
      Board. 0275 ID at 15-16 (citing Lua v. U.S. Postal Service, 87 M.S.P.R. 647, ¶
      12 (2001)). In any event, because the administrative judge reversed the enforced
      leave action on the merits and ordered back pay, there is no need to adjudicate
      the appellant’s FMLA or WWFLA claims because there is no additional relief
      that the Board could order in connection with those claims. See Hess v. U.S.
      Postal Service, 123 M.S.P.R. 183, ¶ 8 (2016) (dismissing an affirmative defense
      wherein the underlying personnel action was rescinded and there was no
      additional relief that the Board could order in connection with that defense).

                                           ORDER
¶11        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
      for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.         On remand,
      the administrative judge shall inform the appellant of his burden of proof
      regarding his affirmative defense of race discrimination, afford the parties
      an additional opportunity to conduct discovery on this issue, and hold a
      supplemental hearing, if requested. The administrative judge shall issue a new
                                                                                              9

      initial decision that addresses the appellant’s affirmative defense of race
      discrimination and its effect on the outcome of the appeal, if any. 5
¶12         Notwithstanding      the   remand     proceedings    on    the   appellant’s   race
      discrimination claim, we ORDER the agency to cancel the appellant’s placement
      on enforced leave and restore the appellant to duty effective January 13, 2020.
      See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
      agency must complete this action no later than 20 days after the date of this
      decision.
¶13         We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back
      pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel
      Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this
      decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s
      efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to
      provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the
      Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, in terest due,
      and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed
      amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision.
¶14         We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing
      when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has
      taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask
      the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶15         No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully
      carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement
      with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appel lant
      believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition

      5
        The Board’s regulations provide that a request for attorney fees must be made within
      60 days after issuance of a final decision, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.203(d). In this case, the time
      limit for filing such a request will not begin to run until the decision on remand is
      final. See Aldridge v. Department of Agriculture, 111 M.S.P.R. 670, ¶ 23 n.4 (2009).
                                                                                     10

      should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not
      fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of
      any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
¶16        For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
      Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Def ense Finance and
      Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation
      necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision
      are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all
      documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the
      Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be
      made within the 60-day period set forth above.

      FOR THE BOARD:                                   /s/ for
                                               Jennifer Everling
                                               Acting Clerk of the Board
      Washington, D.C.
                                 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
                                           Civilian Pay Operations

                          DFAS BACK PAY CHECKLIST
The following documentation is required by DFAS Civilian Pay to compute and pay back pay
pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805. Human resources/local payroll offices should use the following
checklist to ensure a request for payment of back pay is complete. Missing documentation may
substantially delay the processing of a back pay award. More information may be found at:
https://wss.apan.org/public/DFASPayroll/Back%20Pay%20Process/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

NOTE: Attorneys’ fees or other non-wage payments (such as damages) are paid by
vendor pay, not DFAS Civilian Pay.

☐ 1) Submit a “SETTLEMENT INQUIRY - Submission” Remedy Ticket. Please identify the
       specific dates of the back pay period within the ticket comments.

Attach the following documentation to the Remedy Ticket, or provide a statement in the ticket
comments as to why the documentation is not applicable:

☐ 2) Settlement agreement, administrative determination, arbitrator award, or order.

☐ 3) Signed and completed “Employee Statement Relative to Back Pay”.

☐ 4) All required SF50s (new, corrected, or canceled). ***Do not process online SF50s
       until notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 5) Certified timecards/corrected timecards. ***Do not process online timecards until
       notified to do so by DFAS Civilian Pay.***

☐ 6) All relevant benefit election forms (e.g. TSP, FEHB, etc.).

☐ 7) Outside earnings documentation. Include record of all amounts earned by the employee
       in a job undertaken during the back pay period to replace federal employment.
       Documentation includes W-2 or 1099 statements, payroll documents/records, etc. Also,
       include record of any unemployment earning statements, workers’ compensation,
       CSRS/FERS retirement annuity payments, refunds of CSRS/FERS employee premiums,
       or severance pay received by the employee upon separation.

Lump Sum Leave Payment Debts: When a separation is later reversed, there is no authority
under 5 U.S.C. § 5551 for the reinstated employee to keep the lump sum annual leave payment
they may have received. The payroll office must collect the debt from the back pay award. The
annual leave will be restored to the employee. Annual leave that exceeds the annual leave
ceiling will be restored to a separate leave account pursuant to 5 CFR § 550.805(g).
                                                                                               2

NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES
Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process
payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as ordered by
the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts.
1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise information
   describing what to do in accordance with decision.
2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration:
       a.   Employee name and social security number.
       b.   Detailed explanation of request.
       c.   Valid agency accounting.
       d.   Authorized signature (Table 63).
       e.   If interest is to be included.
       f.   Check mailing address.
       g.   Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached.
       h.   Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to be
            collected (if applicable).
Attachments to AD-343
1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday
   Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement (if applicable).
2. Copies of SF-50s (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and amounts.
3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency.
4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address to
   return monies.
5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)
6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of the
   type of leave to be charged and number of hours.
7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual Leave
   to be paid.
NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay Period and
required data in 1-7 above.
The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump Sum
Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.)
       a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.
       b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided.
       c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable

If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s
Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.