Opinion

Orlandis Dunn v. United States Postal Service

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Feb 9, 2023
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 22.6%

stating that a regulation should be interpreted by its plain language

How later courts described this case

stating that a regulation should be interpreted by its plain language

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ORLANDIS M. DUNN, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, CH-0752-16-0505-I-1

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DATE: February 9, 2023

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

David W. Neel, Esquire, Shaker Heights, Ohio, for the appellant.

Raymond Wacker, South Euclid, Ohio, for the appellant.

Miriam Dole, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

dismissed his mixed-case removal appeal as untimely. Generally, we grant

petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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 affe cted 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 supplement the administrative judge’s analysis on the

question of whether the appellant made contact with an equal employment

opportunity (EEO) representative within the regulatory timeframe, we AFFIRM

the initial decision.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The appellant, a preference-eligible Carrier Technician with the agency in

Cleveland, Ohio, was removed from his position for failure to maintain a regular

work schedule, effective March 13, 2015. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7

at 39-42, 60. Believing that his removal was based on disability discrimination,

the appellant contacted the agency’s EEO office on April 21, 2015, but he did not

engage in any further process related to filing a formal complaint of

discrimination at that time. IAF, Tab 27 at 8. He later filed a grievance, which

was denied by the arbitrator as untimely filed. IAF, Tab 7 at 62. After the

issuance of the arbitrator’s decision on August 20, 2015, the appellant again

contacted an EEO counselor with the agency on August 25, 2015, alleging

disability discrimination over his removal. Id. at 74. He advised the EEO office

that the “date of incident” was August 20, 2015—the date of the arbitration

decision—as opposed to March 13, 2015— the effective date of his removal. Id.

The appellant and the agency engaged in the appropriate process to investigate a

complaint of discrimination, and on June 10, 2016, the agency issued a final

decision finding no discrimination. Id. at 18-34. On July 20, 2016, the appellant

filed the instant appeal with the Board. IAF, Tab 1.

¶3 The administrative judge issued an order on timeliness requiring the

appellant to show that his appeal to the Board was timely filed. IAF, Tab 3. Both

parties responded, and the administrative judge scheduled a hearing on the

question of timeliness. IAF, Tabs 5, 7, 14, 17, 19. In addition, the agency also

raised the question of the timeliness of the appellant’s contact with an agency

EEO counselor in its narrative response and motion to dismiss and in its

prehearing submission. IAF, Tabs 7, 22. After reviewing the pleadings and

holding two telephonic status conferences, IAF, Tabs 13, 20, the administrative

judge issued an order requiring the parties to file addi tional pleadings on the

question of whether the appellant’s contact with the agency’s EEO counselor was

timely, as it bore on the ultimate timeliness of the appellant’s appeal, IAF, Tab 24

at 1-2 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 1201.154(b); Landingham v. U.S. Postal Service,

81 M.S.P.R. 77, ¶ 10 (1999)). The administrative judge canceled the scheduled

hearing to allow more time for the parties to submit additional pleadings. IAF,

Tab 24 at 2.

¶4 Without holding a hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial

decision. IAF, Tab 29, Initial Decision (ID). He acknowledged the appellant’s

contact with the EEO counselor on April 21, 2015, but noted that the appellant

failed to provide any of the agency’s requested information, resulting in the

agency closing his request for counseling. ID at 6. The administrative judge

determined that the actual date of the appellant’s initial contact with the agency’s

EEO counselor was August 25, 2015. ID at 3. Because this date exceeded the

time limit imposed by 29 C.F.R. § 614.105(a)(1), which requires the appellant to

make initial contact with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the discriminatory

action, the administrative judge found that the appellant’s formal complaint of

discrimination was untimely. ID at 3-4. He also found that the appellant failed to

meet any of the permissible reasons for extending the 45 -day deadline, and he

dismissed the appeal as untimely. ID at 3-7 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2)).

¶5 The appellant has filed a petition for review arguing that he was entitled to

a hearing on the question of timeliness and that , contrary to the administrative

judge’s finding, he made timely contact with an EEO counselor. Petition for

Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. The agency has filed a response to the appellant’s

petition. PFR File, Tab 3.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

¶6 When an appellant has been subjected to an action appealable to the Board

and raises issues of prohibited discrimination, he may file a timely formal

complaint of discrimination with the agency or a timely appeal with the Board.

Hess v. U.S. Postal Service, 124 M.S.P.R. 40, ¶ 11 (2016); 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.154(a). When, as in this case, an appellant elects to file a complaint of

discrimination, it must comport with the regulatory requirements set forth in

29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.105-1614.106. These regulations require a “pre-complaint

process.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105. Part of that process requires an aggrieved

person to make initial contact with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the date

of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action,

within 45 days of the effective date of the action. Conover v. Department of the

Army, 78 M.S.P.R. 605, 613-14 (1998); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). The

regulations further discuss the pre-complaint steps that must be taken by the

agency and the appellant, which ultimately determine the date by which a formal

complaint of discrimination must be filed with the agency. 29 C.F.R.

§§ 1614.105-1614.106.

¶7 After filing a timely formal complaint, the appellant may file an appeal with

the Board within 30 days of his receipt of the agency’s final decision or, if the

agency failed to resolve his complaint within 120 days, any time after those

120 days. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.154(b). Thus, to gain the right to appeal to the Board

in a mixed case in which the appellant elected to proceed with the agency’s

internal EEO process, both an appellant’s formal complaint of discrimination to

the agency and his appeal to the Board must be timely filed. 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.154(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(b). The appellant bears the burden of proof,

by a preponderance of the evidence, on the issue of timeliness. See Mauldin v.

U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 513, ¶5 (2013); 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B).

¶8 In the initial decision, the administrative judge found that the appellant’s

complaint to the agency was untimely under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a), thereby

depriving the appellant of his right to appeal his removal to the Board. ID at 4.

This finding was based on the administrative judge’s determination that the

appellant made initial contact with an agency EEO counselor on August 25, 2015.

ID at 1-2. Although we agree with the administrative judge’s ultimate conclusion

that the appellant’s EEO activity prior to his Board appeal was untimely, we

modify his analysis to consider in greater detail the appellant’s April 21, 2015

contact with an EEO counselor.

¶9 The plain language of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) requires only that an

aggrieved person “initiate contact” with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the

effective date of the agency action. Id. On review, the appellant argues that he

initially contacted the EEO counselor on April 21, 2015, which would place him

within the 45-day time limit mandated by the regulation. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4.

To support this argument, the appellant refers to a letter from the agency’s EEO

contact center. IAF, Tab 27 at 8. Although the letter ultimately closes the

appellant’s request for counseling due to his failure to provide the requested

information, it reiterates the appellant’s initial contact date of April 21, 2015. Id.

Thus, it appears that the appellant met the 45-day initial contact requirement set

forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1); see Lengerich v. Department of the Interior,

454 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating that a regulation should be

interpreted by its plain language).

¶10 Nonetheless, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.154, the regulation providing for Board

review in mixed-case appeals, requires the appellant to have filed a timely formal

complaint of discrimination with the agency. Because the appellant did not

continue with the pre-complaint process outlined in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105, there

was no timely complaint filed, or any formal complaint at all, as a result of the

April 21, 2015 contact. IAF, Tab 27 at 8. Therefore, we find that, due to the

appellant’s own inaction, he failed to file a timely formal complaint of

discrimination and that, although the administrative judge relied on the

August 25, 2015 date as the date of initial contact, the ultimate dismissal for

untimeliness was proper.

¶11 Although it is not clear why the administrative judge disregarded the

April 21, 2015 contact, his reliance on August 25, 2015, as the initial contact date

is not entirely misplaced. ID at 6. In an EEO dispute resolution specialist’s

inquiry report, the date recorded for the initial contact with the EEO office is

August 25, 2015. IAF, Tab 7 at 74. Even if we determined, in the alternative,

that the date of the appellant’s initial contact was August 25, 2015, we would still

find the administrative judge’s dismissal for untimeliness to be proper.

¶12 Initial contact made on August 25, 2015, would exceed the 45-day limit

imposed by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) by several months; however, the

regulation provides four permissible reasons for extending the 45-day deadline.

ID at 3-7 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2)). One of those reasons is that,

despite due diligence, the appellant was prevented from making counselor

contact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2). 2 The appellant has argued that after his

The administrative judge discussed the other possible reasons for extending the

deadline and found that none applied to the appellant. ID at 3 -7. These findings have

not been challenged on review, PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, and we find no reason to disturb

them here.

removal an EEO counselor informed him that it would be more prudent to

proceed with a grievance before filing a formal complaint of discrimination with

the agency. IAF, Tab 27 at 6-7. Regardless of the veracity of this assertion, the

record is clear that in April 2015, the agency sent the appellant information to be

completed and returned in order to proceed with the pre-complaint process, and

the appellant did neither. 3 Id. at 8. Ultimately, it was his own inactions that

halted the first contact with an EEO counselor, not the agency’s alleged

prevention. Thus, we agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that the

appellant failed to engage in basic due diligence as required by 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.105(a)(2) to receive a waiver of the 45-day period. ID at 6.

¶13 The appellant also argues on review that the Board is required to defer to

the agency’s determination on the timeliness of a formal complaint of

discrimination. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. He references a nonprecedential order

issued by the Board that remanded an appeal in which the initial decision rejected

an agency’s determination that the appellant’s EEO complaint was timely filed,

finding instead that the EEO complaint was untimely because the appellant did

not contact the agency’s EEO counselor within 45 days of the discriminatory act.

Id. (citing Portal v. Department of Labor, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-14-0225-

I-1, Remand Order (Portal RO), ¶ 10 (Feb. 27, 2015)). We find the appellant’s

On review, the appellant argues that the administrative judge improperly made

credibility determinations concerning his assertions that an EEO counselor told him to

file a grievance before filing an EEO complaint. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. He argues that

the administrative judge should have held a hearing to determine the credibility of his

claims. Id. The Board has held that when an appellant has requested a hearing in his

appeal and the administrative judge determines that there is a dispute of material facts

relating to timeliness, the appellant is entitled to a hearing on timeliness. Brown v. U.S.

Postal Service, 106 M.S.P.R. 12, ¶ 16 (2007). Here, the administrative judge found

there to be no disputed material facts, ID at 3, and we agree. We find the appellant’s

assertions regarding the conversations with an EEO counselor to be immaterial. Other

portions of the written record show that the agency’s actions, regardless of its alleged

statements, prove that it properly engaged in the pre-complaint process with the

appellant and that the appellant failed to engage in return. IAF, Tab 27 at 7. Therefore,

we agree with the administrative judge that there is no dispute of material fact, and we

find his decision on the written record to be proper. Brown, 106 M.S.P.R. 12, ¶ 16.

reliance on Portal to be misplaced. In that case, the agency had mad e an explicit

determination on the question of timeliness, Portal RO, ¶ 5, and it is well settled

that the Board must defer to the employing agency’s determinations regarding the

timeliness of discrimination complaints, Cloutier v. U.S. Postal Service,

89 M.S.P.R. 411, ¶ 6 (2011).

¶14 In this case, however, there was no explicit determination on the question of

timeliness. IAF, Tab 7 at 18-34. The appellant provided inaccurate information

to the EEO counselor by claiming that the date of the discriminatory action was

August 20, 2015, the date of the arbitrator’s grievance decision, rather than

March 13, 2015, the effective date of his removal. Id. at 74. Given that the

initial contact date recorded on the relevant form was August 25, 2015—five days

after the arbitrator’s decision—the EEO counselor would have had no reason to

question the timeliness of the contact. Further, both the Board and the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission have indicated that an agency’s acceptance

and investigation of a complaint with no finding on the issue of timelin ess is not a

waiver of the time limit for initiating contact with an EEO counselor.

Landingham, 81 M.S.P.R. 77, ¶ 10; Ziman v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

No. 01842595, 1986 WL 635226 at 8 (July 23, 1986). Because we have no

timeliness determination to which to defer, and in the absence of such a

determination, the 45-day time limit is not considered to be waived, we find the

appellant’s argument to be meritless.

¶15 Regardless of whether the appellant’s initial contact date with an agency

EEO counselor was April 21, 2015, or August 25, 2015, we find that the appellant

failed to file a timely formal complaint of discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm

the initial decision as modified herein.

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 an d

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).

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.

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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017). If you have a

representative in this case, and your representative receives this decis ion 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 disa bling

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

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