Opinion

Janelle Mason v. Office of Personnel Management

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Jun 27, 2024
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 30.0%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

JANELLE MASON, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DC-844E-20-0306-I-1

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: June 27, 2024

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Janelle Mason , District Heights, Maryland, pro se.

Linnette Scott , Washington, D.C., 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

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

dismissed for failure to prosecute her appeal of a decision by the Office of

Personnel Management. On review, she argues that she was unable to attend the

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

scheduled telephonic hearing below due to a “pandemic medical emergency.” 2

Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 3; Initial Appeal File, Tab 7 at 1.

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).

If a party fails to prosecute or defend an appeal, the sanction of dismissal

with prejudice may be imposed. Davis v. Department of Commerce,

120 M.S.P.R. 34, ¶ 17 (2013); Williams v. U.S. Postal Service, 116 M.S.P.R. 377,

¶ 7 (2011) (citing Ahlberg v. Department of Health and Human Services, 804 F.2d

1238, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.43(b)). Such an extreme

sanction is only appropriate when necessary to serve the ends of justice and

The appellant indicates in her petition for review that she is including with her

pleading medical documents surrounding a medical emergency. Petition for Review

(PFR) File, Tab 1 at 2. However, it does not appear that she has included any such

documents. Rather, it seems that the appellant attempted to scan medical

documentation, as one of the pages of the attachments contains the phrase “in 1 -2 days

for reeval,” but this documentation is illegible and incomplete. Id. at 4-5. Recognizing

that certain medical documentation could have an impact on the success of the

appellant’s petition for review, the Office of the Clerk of the Board provided the

appellant with an opportunity to resubmit the attachments, but the appellant did not do

so. PFR File, Tab 4.

should only be imposed when (1) a party has failed to exercise basic due

diligence in complying with Board orders or (2) a party has exhibited negligence

or bad faith in its efforts to comply. Davis, 120 M.S.P.R. 34, ¶ 18;

Williams, 116 M.S.P.R. 377, ¶ 7. If an appellant repeatedly fails to respond to

multiple Board orders, such inaction reflects a failure to exercise basic due

diligence, and the imposition of the sanction of dismissal for failure to prosecute

is appropriate. Williams, 116 M.S.P.R. 377, ¶ 9; Heckman v. Department of the

Interior, 106 M.S.P.R. 210, ¶ 16 (2007); Murdock v. Government Printing Office,

38 M.S.P.R. 297, 299 (1988). Absent a showing of abuse of discretion, the Board

will not reverse an administrative judge’s determination regarding the imposition

of sanctions, including the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. Turner v. U.S.

Postal Service, 123 M.S.P.R. 640, 644-45 (2016), aff’d, 681 F. App’x 934

(Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on our review of the record, we find no abuse of

discretion on the part of the administrative judge in this appeal. 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

As noted above, the appellant claims in her petition for review that she was unable to

attend a hearing because of a “pandemic medical emergency.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 3.

However, she has not explained why she was unable to respond to the administrative

judge’s orders regarding prehearing submissions, nor has she explained why she failed

to respond to the order to show cause. Id. Moreover, she has not explained how a

medical emergency impacted her ability to respond to any of the administrative judge’s

orders. Id. Importantly, she has not provided any evidence to support her claim of a

“pandemic medical emergency,” despite having multiple opportunities to do so.

PFR File, Tabs 1, 4. The Board typically will not entertain a claim of a medical

emergency absent corroborating evidence. See, e.g., Martin v. Office of Personnel

Management, 51 M.S.P.R. 360, 361 (1991) (stating that an appellant’s claim that he was

ill is a “mere assertion” when it is unsupported by medical documentation when

analyzing a timeliness issue and whether an appellant’s assertion of illness constituted

good cause). Accordingly, the appellant’s petition for review does not provide a basis

to disturb the initial decision.

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.

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).

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 petition for

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

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