Jennifer Neal v. Department of Veterans Affairs ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
    JENNIFER NEAL,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
    Appellant,                  AT-0714-20-0742-I-1
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: July 21, 2023
    AFFAIRS,
    Agency.
    THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
    Neil C. Bonney, Esquire, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for the appellant.
    Joy Warner, Karla Brown Dolby, and Sophia E. Haynes, Esquire, Decatur,
    Georgia, for the agency.
    BEFORE
    Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
    Raymond A. Limon, Member
    FINAL ORDER
    ¶1         The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
    reversed the appellant’s performance-based removal, taken under 
    38 U.S.C. § 714
    . For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS t he agency’s petition for
    review as moot.
    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    A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
    ¶2         Effective August 10, 2020, the agency relied upon 
    38 U.S.C. § 714
     to
    remove the appellant from her GS-11 Field Examiner position for unacceptable
    performance.    Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 17, 19-22.          The appellant
    challenged her removal in the instant appeal. IAF, Tab 1. After developing the
    record and holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge ruled in favor
    of the appellant, reversing her removal. IAF, Tab 55, Initial Decision (ID). In
    short, the administrative judge considered a related decision by the Federal Labor
    Relations Authority (FLRA) finding that individuals, such as the appellant,
    should have been afforded performance improvement periods (PIPs) prior to a
    removal based on unacceptable performance, and thus the appellant’s removal
    was not in accordance with law. 2 ID at 2-6.
    ¶3         The agency has filed a petition for review, and the appellant has responded.
    Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 9. The agency has filed a reply. PFR
    File, Tab 11. Due to intervening events and representations while this appeal was
    pending on review, including some about the FLRA decision the administrative
    judge considered, the Office of the Clerk of the Board issued multiple orders
    seeking information about whether this appeal may have become moot. PFR File,
    Tab 16, 19, 23. These orders and the parties’ responses addressed developments
    stemming from two different series of arbitration and FLRA decisions pertaining
    to 
    38 U.S.C. § 714
     and performance-based actions and the agency’s bargaining
    obligations regarding the implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs
    Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017. PFR File, Tabs 14,
    16-20, 22-28; see U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits
    2
    The administrative judge ordered the agency to provide interim relief if either party
    filed a petition for review. ID at 7-8. The parties made various arguments about
    interim relief on petition for review. PFR File, Tabs 1, 7, 10. After the administrative
    judge issued her initial decision, the Board held that interim relief is precluded in
    actions taken under 
    38 U.S.C. § 714
    . Schmidt v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
    
    2022 MSPB 40
    , ¶¶ 9-16; see 
    38 U.S.C. § 714
    (d)(7). In light of our disposition of this
    appeal, we need not discuss this issue further.
    3
    Administration v. American Federation of Government Employees National
    Veterans Affairs Council #53, 
    71 F.L.R.A. 1113
     (2020),               recon. denied
    
    72 F.L.R.A. 407
     (2021) (PIP decisions); American Federation of Government
    Employees National Veterans Affairs Council #53 v. U.S. Department of Veterans
    Affairs, 
    71 F.L.R.A. 410
     (2019), recon. denied 
    71 F.L.R.A. 741
     (2020) (duty to
    bargain decisions).
    ¶4        Even though an action may have been within the Board’s jurisdiction,
    subsequent events may render an appeal moot and foreclose the Board’s review.
    Price v. U.S. Postal Service, 
    118 M.S.P.R. 222
    , ¶ 8 (2012). Mootness can arise at
    any stage of litigation, and an appeal will be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of
    an intervening event, the Board cannot grant any effectual relief in favor of the
    appellant, as when the appellant, by whatever means, obtained all of the relief she
    could have obtained had she prevailed before the Board and the reby lost any
    legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the appeal.      
    Id.
        The agency’s
    unilateral modification of its personnel action after an appeal has been filed
    cannot divest the Board of jurisdiction, unless the appellant consents to such
    divestiture or the agency completely rescinds the action being appealed. 
    Id.
     For
    an appeal to be deemed moot, the agency’s rescission must be complete, i.e., the
    appellant must be returned to the status quo ante and not left in a worse position
    as a result of the cancellation than she would have been in if the matter had been
    adjudicated and she had prevailed. 
    Id.
    ¶5        While its petition for review remained pending, the agency determined that
    the appellant was entitled to relief pursuant to the FLRA’s PIP decision s,
    including retroactive cancellation of her removal. PFR File, Tab 18 at 4-5, 84-85,
    Tab 22 at 4, 7-11. Both parties have now indicated that the agency cancelled the
    appellant’s removal, returned her to duty, and altogether made her whole. PFR
    File, Tab 27 at 4, Tab 28 at 4-5. Both parties have further indicated that the only
    issue that remains is attorney fees. PFR File, Tab 27 at 4, Tab 28 at 4. However,
    the incurrence of costs and attorney fees will not prevent dismissal of an appeal
    4
    as moot because an attorney fee award under 
    5 U.S.C. § 7701
    (g) is considered to
    be separate from relief on the merits. Price, 
    118 M.S.P.R. 222
    , ¶ 8 n.2.
    ¶6         Because the agency has granted the appellant all the relief the Board could
    have afforded her in this appeal, the petition for review is dismissed as moot.
    NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
    YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
    ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
    You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
    fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at Title 5 of
    the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
    regulations may be found at 
    5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201
    , 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
    you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for at torney fees
    and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
    You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
    the initial decision on your appeal.
    NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
    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 fo llow all
    3
    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
    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
    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.
    6
    (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 discrimi nation 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,
    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:
    7
    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. 4   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).
    4
    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
    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 we bsite 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.
    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:                            /s/ for
    Jennifer Everling
    Acting Clerk of the Board
    Washington, D.C.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: AT-0714-20-0742-I-1

Filed Date: 7/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/22/2023