Opinion

Mellody Williams-Huntley v. Social Security Administration

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Jun 24, 2024
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 26.1%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MELLODY WILLIAMS-HUNTLEY, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, CH-0752-19-0568-B-1

SOCIAL SECURITY DATE: June 24, 2024

ADMINISTRATION,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Mellody Estella Maria Williams-Huntley , Carol Stream, Illinois, pro se.

Amy Baines and Joshua P. Dehnke , Baltimore, Maryland, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

Henry J. Kerner, Member*

*Member Kerner did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

affirmed her misconduct-based removal. On petition for review, the appellant,

among other things, attempts to justify the behavior underlying some of the

charged misconduct. She also moves to disqualify or exclude the agency

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

representatives from her appeal. 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

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 and AFFIRM the initial

decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

¶2 In support of her motion to disqualify or exclude the agency’s

representatives, the appellant argues, among other things, that the representatives

committed errors in judgment and that a conflict of interest exists.

Williams-Huntley v. Social Security Administration, MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-

19-0568-B-1, Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 3 at 3. The Board’s regulations

provide for the disqualification of a representative based on a conflict of interest,

as well as for the exclusion of a representative for contumacious conduct or

conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 5 C.F.R.

§§ 1201.31(b)-(c), 1201.43(d). The appellant, however, has not identified any

conflict of interest involving the agency’s representatives, and we discern none.

The appellant has also not specified the error in judgment to which she refers, nor

how any such error forms a basis to disqualify or exclude the agency’s

representatives. Further, though she repeats vague allegations of threats of bodily

harm and identity theft she raised below, she previously explained that she had

not faced threats of bodily harm and that her concerns of identity theft did not

relate to this appeal. PFR File, Tab 3 at 3; Williams-Huntley v. Social Security

Administration, MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-19-0568-B-1, Remand File (RF),

Tab 39 at 2. Accordingly, her motion is denied. 2

¶3 On review, the appellant makes two arguments which she did not raise

below. Because she does not show these arguments are based on new and

material evidence not previously available despite due diligence, we need not

consider them. Clay v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016).

In any event, they would not afford any basis to grant the petition for review.

¶4 The appellant’s first new argument is that she was allowed to wear a hat at

work as long as it did not obstruct her view of agency computers, and thus the

agency failed to prove one of its specifications under the conduct unbecoming a

Federal employee charge. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. The specification did not just

allege that the appellant wore a hat but that she wore a hat with paper notes

attached, along with a garbage bag. RF, Tab 56 at 6. The appellant’s supervisor

—whose declaration the administrative judge credited in sustaining the

specification regarding the appellant’s headwear—explained that the appellant

wore those items on a day she was assigned as a back-up receptionist and that he

was concerned about interactions she would have with the public. RF, Tab 45

at 5, Tab 57, Remand Initial Decision (ID) at 8. The appellant’s claim that she

was allowed to wear a hat at work thus fails to counter the gravamen of the

specification.

¶5 The appellant’s second new argument is that her approval for the agency’s

identity protection program (IPP)—a program designed to preserve the anonymity

To the extent the appellant suggests that the agency’s representatives were improperly

designated because they were not members of a bargaining unit while she was in a

bargaining unit, PFR File, Tab 3 at 3, she has not explained the legal basis for her

claim. Similarly, she has not explained how it was improper for the agency to rely on

non-bargaining unit members and even non-Federal employees to prove its case. Id.

Thus, her claims form no basis to grant her motion or disturb the initial decision.

of agency employees who believe disclosure of their work location or phone

number would risk harm—explains her belief that “impersonators were hired

under [her] credentials.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 6, Tab 3 at 5-6. But the approval of

the appellant for the IPP does not mean that her claims regarding

“impersonators,” relevant to several of the charged specifications, were credible

or not concerning. RF, Tab 56 at 6-7. The administrative judge credited the

appellant’s supervisor’s declaration to find that the appellant’s claims that she

was being impersonated by another employee were distracting and hampered the

supervisor’s ability to perform his duties. ID at 8-12. In light of the

implausibility of the appellant’s impersonation claims, her IPP argument provides

no reason to determine the contrary. 3

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

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

The appellant’s reply to the agency’s response to her petition for review is not limited

to the factual and legal issues raised in the agency’s response, and thus, we will not

consider evidence or arguments first raised in the reply. PFR File, Tab 6; 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.114(a)(4); see Lin v. Department of the Air Force, 2023 MSPB 2, ¶ 8 n.4. Even

if we did consider such evidence or arguments, they are either inaccurate, irrelevant, or,

like the claim she raises that the deciding official lacked authority to remove her,

unsupported.

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.

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.

(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,

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

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.

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