Opinion

Jennifer Neal v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Court
Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 23.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

JENNIFER NEAL, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, AT-0714-20-0742-I-1

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS DATE: July 21, 2023

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Neil C. Bonney, Esquire, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for the appellant.

Joy Warner, Karla Brown Dolby, and Sophia E. Haynes, Esquire, Decatur,

Georgia, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

FINAL ORDER

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

reversed the appellant’s performance-based removal, taken under 38 U.S.C.

§ 714. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS t he agency’s petition for

review as moot.

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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

¶2 Effective August 10, 2020, the agency relied upon 38 U.S.C. § 714 to

remove the appellant from her GS-11 Field Examiner position for unacceptable

performance. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 17, 19-22. The appellant

challenged her removal in the instant appeal. IAF, Tab 1. After developing the

record and holding the requested hearing, the administrative judge ruled in favor

of the appellant, reversing her removal. IAF, Tab 55, Initial Decision (ID). In

short, the administrative judge considered a related decision by the Federal Labor

Relations Authority (FLRA) finding that individuals, such as the appellant,

should have been afforded performance improvement periods (PIPs) prior to a

removal based on unacceptable performance, and thus the appellant’s removal

was not in accordance with law. 2 ID at 2-6.

¶3 The agency has filed a petition for review, and the appellant has responded.

Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 9. The agency has filed a reply. PFR

File, Tab 11. Due to intervening events and representations while this appeal was

pending on review, including some about the FLRA decision the administrative

judge considered, the Office of the Clerk of the Board issued multiple orders

seeking information about whether this appeal may have become moot. PFR File,

Tab 16, 19, 23. These orders and the parties’ responses addressed developments

stemming from two different series of arbitration and FLRA decisions pertaining

to 38 U.S.C. § 714 and performance-based actions and the agency’s bargaining

obligations regarding the implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs

Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017. PFR File, Tabs 14,

16-20, 22-28; see U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits

2

The administrative judge ordered the agency to provide interim relief if either party

filed a petition for review. ID at 7-8. The parties made various arguments about

interim relief on petition for review. PFR File, Tabs 1, 7, 10. After the administrative

judge issued her initial decision, the Board held that interim relief is precluded in

actions taken under 38 U.S.C. § 714. Schmidt v. Department of Veterans Affairs,

2022 MSPB 40, ¶¶ 9-16; see 38 U.S.C. § 714(d)(7). In light of our disposition of this

appeal, we need not discuss this issue further.

3

Administration v. American Federation of Government Employees National

Veterans Affairs Council #53, 71 F.L.R.A. 1113 (2020), recon. denied

72 F.L.R.A. 407 (2021) (PIP decisions); American Federation of Government

Employees National Veterans Affairs Council #53 v. U.S. Department of Veterans

Affairs, 71 F.L.R.A. 410 (2019), recon. denied 71 F.L.R.A. 741 (2020) (duty to

bargain decisions).

¶4 Even though an action may have been within the Board’s jurisdiction,

subsequent events may render an appeal moot and foreclose the Board’s review.

Price v. U.S. Postal Service, 118 M.S.P.R. 222, ¶ 8 (2012). Mootness can arise at

any stage of litigation, and an appeal will be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of

an intervening event, the Board cannot grant any effectual relief in favor of the

appellant, as when the appellant, by whatever means, obtained all of the relief she

could have obtained had she prevailed before the Board and the reby lost any

legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the appeal. Id. The agency’s

unilateral modification of its personnel action after an appeal has been filed

cannot divest the Board of jurisdiction, unless the appellant consents to such

divestiture or the agency completely rescinds the action being appealed. Id. For

an appeal to be deemed moot, the agency’s rescission must be complete, i.e., the

appellant must be returned to the status quo ante and not left in a worse position

as a result of the cancellation than she would have been in if the matter had been

adjudicated and she had prevailed. Id.

¶5 While its petition for review remained pending, the agency determined that

the appellant was entitled to relief pursuant to the FLRA’s PIP decision s,

including retroactive cancellation of her removal. PFR File, Tab 18 at 4-5, 84-85,

Tab 22 at 4, 7-11. Both parties have now indicated that the agency cancelled the

appellant’s removal, returned her to duty, and altogether made her whole. PFR

File, Tab 27 at 4, Tab 28 at 4-5. Both parties have further indicated that the only

issue that remains is attorney fees. PFR File, Tab 27 at 4, Tab 28 at 4. However,

the incurrence of costs and attorney fees will not prevent dismissal of an appeal

4

as moot because an attorney fee award under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(g) is considered to

be separate from relief on the merits. Price, 118 M.S.P.R. 222, ¶ 8 n.2.

¶6 Because the agency has granted the appellant all the relief the Board could

have afforded her in this appeal, the petition for review is dismissed as moot.

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 forth 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 at torney fees

and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued

the initial decision on your appeal.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3

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 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 fo llow all

3

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.

5

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.

6

(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 discrimi nation 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:

7

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. 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).

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

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 we bsite 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.

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their

respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

FOR THE BOARD: /s/ for

Jennifer Everling

Acting 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.