Joan Staples-Baum v. Office of Personnel Management ( 2015 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
JOAN STAPLES-BAUM, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, DE-0843-15-0086-I-1
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: December 8, 2015
MANAGEMENT,
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *
Joan Staples-Baum, Tacoma, Washington, pro se.
Cynthia Reinhold, Washington, D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
Mark A. Robbins, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the July 9, 2015 initial
decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 19; Petition for Review
(PFR) File, Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the petition for
review as settled.
*
A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
¶2 After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document
titled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by the appellant on
September 21, 2015, and by the agency on September 22, 2015. PFR File, Tab 3.
The document provides, among other things, for the dismissal of the petition for
review. Id.,¶ 1.
¶3 Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the
parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend
to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See
Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146, 149 (1988). We find here that
the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement, that they
understand the terms, and that they want the Board to enforce those terms. PFR
File, Tab 3, ¶ 4.
¶4 In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the record for
enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the agreement is lawful
on its face, whether the parties freely entered into it, and whether the subject
matter of this appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction; that is, whether a law,
rule, or regulation grants the Board the authority to decide such a matter. See
Stewart v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 104, 107 (1997). We find here that
the agreement is lawful on its face, that the parties freely entered into it, and that
the subject matter of this appeal—an appeal of a final reconsideration decision
issued by the Office of Personnel Management regarding a claim for retirement
benefits—is within the Board’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d) and
5 C.F.R. § 831.110. Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the petition for
review “with prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this
appeal) is appropriate under these circumstances, and we accept the settlement
agreement into the record for enforcement purposes.
¶5 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this
appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113).
3
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR
ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS
If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the
agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by
promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial
decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the
petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not
been fully carried out, and should include the dates and results of any
communications between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).
NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
You have the right to request by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit to review of this final decision. You must submit your request to the
court at the following address:
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20439
The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days
after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27,
2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held
that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and
that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v.
Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in
title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff. Dec.
27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United States
Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm. Additional
information is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of
4
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, 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
Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any
attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
William D. Spencer
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.