Opinion

Mary D. Davis v. United States Postal Service

Court
Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed
May 20, 2015
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MARY D. DAVIS, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, PH-0353-10-0500-X-1

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DATE: May 20, 2015

Agency.

THIS FINAL O RDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL ∗

Paul A. Bureau, Nashua, New Hampshire, for the appellant.

Anna V. Crawford, Esquire, Windsor, Connecticut, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The Board issued a nonprecedential final order finding the agency in

noncompliance with the Opinion and Order in the underlying restoration appeal.

MSPB Docket No. PH-0353-10-0500-C-1, Compliance Order. For the reasons

discussed below, we now find the agency in compliance and DISMISS the

petition for enforcement.

∗

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add

sign ificantly 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE

¶2 On September 13, 2013, the Board issued an Opinion and Order finding that

the agency arbitrarily and capriciously denied the appellant restoration as a

partially recovered individual. MSPB Docket No. PH-0353-10-0500-B-1,

Opinion and Order at 1-2 (Sept. 13, 2013). The Board ordered the agency to

conduct a proper search for available tasks, consistent with the criteria laid out in

the Opinion and Order. Id. at 2.

¶3 The appellant filed a petition for enforcement, and the administrative judge

issued a compliance initial decision finding the agency in noncompliance with the

Opinion and Order. MSPB Docket No. PH-0353-10-0500-C-1, Compliance Initial

Decision at 4 (Mar. 20, 2014). The administrative judge ordered the agency to

submit “documentation of available tasks or work within the local commuting

area that it searched for retroactive to April 2009.” Id. at 7. If the agency found

available work to which it could have assigned the appellant, it was ordered to

pay her back pay, with interest, and benefits. Id. at 7-8.

¶4 The appellant petitioned for review. On February 25, 2015, the Board

issued a nonprecedential final order affirming the compliance initial decision,

with some modification to the search terms. Compliance Order at 2. The Board

ordered the agency to submit documentation regarding available tasks and

positions within the local commuting area between April 2009 and December 28,

2009. Id. at 7. If the agency’s search uncovered available work to which it could

have restored the appellant, the agency was required to pay her back pay, with

interest, and benefits. Id.

¶5 The Board referred the case to the Office of General Counsel to obtain

compliance. On March 3, 2015, the Board issued an acknowledgement order

instructing the agency to file the evidence required by the February 25, 2015 final

order. MSPB Docket No. PH-0353-10-0500-X-1, Compliance Referral File

(CRF), Tab 5 at 2. The Board informed the appellant that if she did not file a

response within 15 days of the date of service of the agency’s submission, the

3

Board might assume she was satisfied and dismiss her petition for enforcement.

Id.

¶6 On March 17, 2015, the agency submitted evidence of purported

compliance, stating that it had paid the appellant back pay, with interest, and

benefits for the period between April 1, 2009, and December 28, 2009. CRF, Tab

6 at 4. The appellant did not file a response.

¶7 Because the agency has submitted evidence of purported compliance and

the appellant has not challenged it, we now find the agency in compliance,

assume the appellant is satisfied, and dismiss the petition for enforcement. This

is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this compliance

proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.183(c)(1)

(5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(c)(1)).

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 out 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 attorney fees

WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. You

must file your attorney fees motion with the office that issued the initial decision

on your appeal.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review

You may request review of this final decision on your discrimination

claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See Title 5

4

of the United States Code, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). If you

submit your request 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 your request 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, NE

Suite 5SW12G

Washington, D.C. 20507

You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your

receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your

representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no

later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to

file, be very careful to file on time.

Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action

If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your

discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your

discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate United States

district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with

the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If

you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order

before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar

days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to

file on time. 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

5

prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)

and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.