The opinion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
DOUGLAS MARRISETTE, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, AT-0752-15-0680-B-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS DATE: June 2, 2023
AFFAIRS,
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Norman Jackman, Esquire, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for the appellant.
Luis E. Ortiz, Orlando, Florida, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the remand initial decision,
which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of his removal pursuant to a
last chance agreement (LCA). On petition for review, the appellant reasserts his
closing arguments and resubmits evidence. Compare Marrisette v. Department of
1
A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).
2
Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-15-0680-B-1, Remand Petition for
Review (RPFR) File, Tab 1, with Marrisette v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-15-0680-B-1, Remand File (RF), Tab 16. The
agency has filed a response. RPFR File, Tab 3. 2 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 erron eous
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. Except as expressly
MODIFIED to address the scope and applicability of the waiver of appeal rights
in the LCA, we AFFIRM the remand initial decision.
¶2 The appellant’s reassertion of his closing arguments on review, without
more, does not provide a reason to disturb the administrative judge’s findings that
the appellant failed to show that he did not voluntarily enter into the LCA or that
he complied with the LCA. RPFR File, Tab 1 at 4-7; RF, Tab 17, Remand Initial
Decision at 4-9; see Rhett v. U.S. Postal Service, 113 M.S.P.R. 178, ¶ 13 (2010)
(explaining that, to establish that a waiver of appeal rights in an LCA should not
be enforced, an appellant must show one of the following: (1) he complied with
the LCA; (2) the agency materially breached the LCA or acted in bad faith; (3) he
did not voluntarily enter into the LCA; or (4) the LCA resulted from fraud or
2
We have not considered the agency’s submission of evidence on review because it is
immaterial to the outcome of this appeal.
3
mutual mistake). Further, the evidence attached to the appellant’s petition for
review is already a part of the record, and we find it does not contain any
information of sufficient weight to change the outcome. RPFR File, Tab 1
at 8-10; RF, Tab 16 at 8-10; see Meier v. Department of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R.
247, 256 (1980); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(a), (d).
¶3 However, we modify the remand initial decision, as follows, to address the
scope and applicability of the waiver of appeal rights in the LCA. See Rhett,
113 M.S.P.R. 178, ¶ 17. It is well settled that a waiver of a statutory right must
be clear, unequivocal, and decisive. Hamiter v. U.S. Postal Service, 96 M.S.P.R.
511, ¶ 15 (2004). Here, the LCA concerned the agency’s November 12, 2012
decision to remove the appellant. Marrisette v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-15-0680-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 7, Subtab 4f
at 1. Under the LCA, the agency agreed to hold the effective date of his removal
in abeyance in return for his compliance with the terms of the LCA for a 2-year
period. Id. The appellant agreed that any violation of the LCA would result in
his removal becoming effective immediately upon notice of the violation, and he
further agreed to waive his right to appeal the November 12, 2012 removal
decision. Id. at 1-2. We find that this language constitutes a clear and
unequivocal waiver of the appellant’s right to appeal the implementation of his
November 12, 2012 removal to the Board. See Bruhn v. Department of
Agriculture, 124 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶¶ 20-22 (2016) (finding that the appellant waived
his right to appeal the implementation of his prior removal under the terms of the
LCA). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
4
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
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 requireme nts. 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).
3
Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board m ay 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.
5
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 websi te 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 ac tion
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
6
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you ma y 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, the n 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
7
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. 4 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
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
4
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.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
8
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the li nk below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
FOR THE BOARD: /s/ for
Jennifer Everling
Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.