Dayo Stevens v. Department of Veterans Affairs ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
    DAYO STEVENS,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
    Appellant,                  PH-0714-22-0158-I-1
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: March 28, 2024
    AFFAIRS,
    Agency.
    THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
    Dayo Stevens , Georgetown, Delaware, pro se.
    Nelda R. Davis , Esquire, Baltimore, Maryland, 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
    denied his affirmative defense of national origin discrimination and implicitly
    dismissed his removal appeal as moot. 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
    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    A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
    interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to
    the facts of the case; the 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.   Therefore, we DENY the petition for review.             Except as expressly
    MODIFIED to explicitly DISMISS the removal appeal as moot, we AFFIRM the
    initial decision.
    The Board may dismiss an appeal as moot if the appealable action is
    canceled or rescinded by the agency.          Fernandez v. Department of Justice,
    
    105 M.S.P.R. 443
    , ¶ 5 (2007). For the appeal to be deemed moot, the employee
    must have received all of the relief that he could have received if the matter had
    been adjudicated and he had prevailed. 
    Id.
     When an agency cancels an action
    after an appellant files a Board appeal and the appellant has a viable outstanding
    compensatory damages claim, such as a discrimination claim, the appeal is not
    mooted by the cancellation. See Currier v. U.S. Postal Service, 
    72 M.S.P.R. 191
    ,
    195-97 (1996).
    On review, the appellant challenges the administrative judge’s findings
    regarding his affirmative defense of national origin discrimination, and he asserts
    that he is entitled to compensatory damages for the pain and suffering he endured
    in connection with the removal.           Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.
    Compensatory damages are typically not available in connection with a removal
    appeal unless the appellant prevails on an affirmative defense. 2          See Currier,
    2
    In any event, the appellant has waived this argument because he did not timely raise it
    before the administrative judge. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 21 at 1 n.1, 6 (noting
    that, aside from the discrimination claim, the appellant did not dispute that he was
    3
    72 M.S.P.R. at 195-96 (explaining that, in the absence of an affirmative defense
    such as a discrimination claim, compensatory damages are not available in
    connection with an adverse action appeal before the Board).            The appellant’s
    arguments concerning his national origin discrimination claim are not clear. To
    the extent the appellant is asserting that the removal action was discriminatory,
    we agree with the administrative judge, for the reasons stated in the initial
    decision, that there is no evidence that the agency considered the appellant’s
    national origin in connection with proposing or sustaining the removal. Initial
    Appeal File (IAF), Tab 28, Initial Decision (ID) at 3-13.              The appellant’s
    arguments on review provide no basis to disturb this finding. 3 See Crosby v. U.S.
    Postal Service, 
    74 M.S.P.R. 98
    , 106 (1997); Broughton v. Department of Health
    & Human Services, 
    33 M.S.P.R. 357
    , 359 (1987). To the extent the appellant is
    asserting that he was subjected to harassment, separate and apart from the
    removal, the Board lacks jurisdiction over a harassment claim unless it is
    connected to an otherwise appealable action.           See Lethridge v. U.S. Postal
    Service, 
    99 M.S.P.R. 675
    , ¶¶ 8-9 (2005) (holding that claims of discrimination
    and harassment are within the jurisdiction of the Board only when they are related
    to an otherwise appealable personnel action). Based on the foregoing, we deny
    returned to the status quo ante); see McCarty v. Department of the Navy , 
    67 M.S.P.R. 177
    , 180-81 (1995) (finding that the appellant failed to preserve an objection for review
    when he failed to object to the administrative judge’s ruling contained in a prehearing
    conference order).
    3
    We have not considered the documents filed with the appellant’s petition for review.
    PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-13, 19. Under 
    5 C.F.R. § 1201.115
    , the Board generally will not
    consider evidence submitted for the first time with a petition for review absent a
    showing that it was unavailable before the record was closed before the administrative
    judge despite the party’s due diligence. Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 
    3 M.S.P.R. 211
    , 213-14 (1980). Some of the documents were filed before the administrative judge
    and are not new, including an excerpt from an agency handbook, which was discussed
    by the administrative judge in the initial decision. ID at 10-11 n.4; see Meier v.
    Department of the Interior, 
    3 M.S.P.R. 247
    , 256 (1980). To the extent any of the
    documents in the petition for review are not already in the record, the appellant has not
    alleged that they were unavailable before the record closed judge despite his due
    diligence. See Avansino, 3 M.S.P.R. at 213-14; 
    5 C.F.R. § 1201.115
    .
    4
    the petition for review and affirm the initial decision, as modified to explicitly
    dismiss the removal appeal as moot.
    NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
    The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
    Board’s final decision in this matter.      
    5 C.F.R. § 1201.113
    .      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).
    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.
    5
    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.
    (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
    6
    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:
    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
    7
    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
    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
    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.
    8
    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:                        ______________________________
    Gina K. Grippando
    Clerk of the Board
    

Document Info

Docket Number: PH-0714-22-0158-I-1

Filed Date: 3/28/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/29/2024