Opinion

Lance McDermott v. United States Postal Service

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Jan 19, 2023
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 22.6%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

LANCE MCDERMOTT, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, SF-0752-13-0633-B-1

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DATE: January 19, 2023

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Lance McDermott, Seattle, Washington, pro se.

Steven B. Schwartzman, Esquire, Seattle, Washington, 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 remand initial decision,

which affirmed his placement on enforced leave. For the reasons set forth below,

the appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good

cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

BACKGROUND

¶2 The appellant filed the instant appeal, challenging his May 2013 placement

on enforced leave from his Maintenance Mechanic position. McDermott v. U.S.

Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-0633-I-1, Initial Appeal File

(IAF), Tab 2. In short, the agency proposed that action because the appellant’s

position required the ability to distinguish colors and the agency was “unable to

determine that [he could] work safely due to [his] color blindness and re peated

attempt[s] to engage [him had] been unsuccessful.” IAF, Tab 21 at 20 -21. After

holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge modified the start date of

the enforced leave to account for the proper amount of advance notice, but

otherwise affirmed the action. IAF, Tab 52, Initial Decision.

¶3 The appellant filed a petition for review of the initial decision. McDermott

v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-0633-I-1, Petition for

Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The Board granted the petition, vacated the initial

decision, and remanded the case for further adjudication. McDermott v. U.S.

Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-0633-I-1, Remand Order (RO)

(Oct. 13, 2015).

¶4 In the remand order, the Board found that the administrative judge failed to

address the appellant’s affirmative defense of reprisal for engaging in protected

union activity. RO, ¶¶ 11-14. The Board also found that the administrative judge

should reconsider the appellant’s affirmative defense of equal employment

opportunity (EEO) reprisal under the clarified standard provided in Savage v.

Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612 (2015). RO, ¶¶ 15-17. The Board

otherwise agreed with the administrative judge’s findings. Accordingly, the

Board instructed the administrative judge to further develop and address (1) the

appellant’s affirmative defense of reprisal for engaging in protected union

activity, and (2) his EEO reprisal affirmative defense. RO, ¶ 34. The Board

explained that if the appellant did not prevail on either of those affirmative

defenses, the administrative judge could adopt her prior findings concerning the

charge, nexus, penalty, and other affirmative defenses in her remand initial

decision. Id.

¶5 On remand, the administrative judge developed the record and held another

hearing. E.g., McDermott v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-

0633-B-1, Remand File (RF), Tabs 34-35. She then issued a remand initial

decision, denying the two affirmative defenses identified in the Board’s remand

order and adopting all other findings from her initial decision. RF, Tab 36,

Remand Initial Decision (RID). As explained within, that decision was set to

become final on March 18, 2016, unless the appellant filed a petition for review

by that date. RID at 18. On March 16, 2017, the appellant filed a petition for

review. McDermott v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-13-0633-

B-1, Remand Petition for Review (RPFR) File, Tabs 1-3. The agency has filed a

response, noting that the appellant’s petition was untimely by nearly a year.

RPFR File, Tab 5. The appellant has replied and filed a motion to waive his

untimeliness. RPFR File, Tabs 6-7.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

¶6 The Board’s regulations provide that a petition for review must be filed

within 35 days of the issuance of the initial decision or, if the appel lant shows

that the initial decision was received more than 5 days after the date of issuance,

within 30 days after the date he received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.114(e). Here, the appellant has not alleged or established that he received

the remand initial decision more than 5 days after its issuance. Compare RF,

Tab 37 (demonstrating that the remand initial decision was transmitted to the

appellant electronically on February 12, 2016), with 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2)

(recognizing that MSPB documents served electronically on registered e -filers are

deemed received on the date of electronic submission). Thus, we find that the

appellant’s petition for review was untimely filed by nearly a year.

¶7 The Board will excuse the late filing of a petition for review on a showing

of good cause for the delay. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). To establish good cause for

an untimely filing, a party must show that he exercised due diligence or ordinary

prudence under the particular circumstances of the case. Alonzo v. Department of

the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). To determine whether an appellant

has shown good cause, the Board will consider the length of the delay, the

reasonableness of his excuse and his showing of due diligence, whether he is

proceeding pro se, and whether he has presented evidence of the existence of

circumstances beyond his control that affected his ability to comply with the time

limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune that similarly shows a causal

relationship to his inability to timely file his petition. Moorman v. Department of

the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

(Table).

¶8 On review, the appellant attributes his untimeliness to “the [a]gency’s

substantial fraud and dishonesty,” which he claims he only recently discovered.

RPFR File, Tab 7 at 4-10. It appears that this alleged fraud concerns an EEO

complaint he filed and his election of remedies. Id. at 9. We find the appellant’s

arguments, which generally amount to regret that he challenged his enforced

leave before the Board, unavailing. Although he is pro se, the appellant’s

untimeliness of nearly a year is significant and his explanation for that delay is

not persuasive. See, e.g., Zamot v. U.S. Postal Service, 91 M.S.P.R. 475, ¶¶ 6-7

(2002) (dismissing a pro se appellant’s petition as untimely by nearly a year

without good cause when he attributed the delay to his waiting for a decision b y

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), aff’d, 332 F.3d 1374 (Fed.

Cir. 2003); Oliveras v. U.S. Postal Service, 64 M.S.P.R. 74, 76 (1994)

(dismissing a pro se appellant’s petition for review as untimely by nearly a year

without good cause when he alleged that the delay was caused by the agency

withholding pertinent documents).

¶9 Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is

the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness

of the petition for review. The remand initial decision remains the final decision

of the Board regarding the appellant’s enforced leave.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2

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 a ppeal 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 thei r

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 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 chal lenge 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 e ither with the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of

competent jurisdiction. 3 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