# Shiju Philip v. Department of Homeland Security

> Merit Systems Protection Board · April 29, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9964588

## Case

- **Court:** Merit Systems Protection Board
- **Decided:** April 29, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9964588

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SHIJU PHILIP, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, NY-0752-21-0095-X-1

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DATE: April 29, 2024
SECURITY,
Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Paul Bartels , Esquire, Garden City, New York, for the appellant.

Arthur K. Purcell , Esquire, and Keturah Carr , Esquire, New York, New
York, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

FINAL ORDER

In a March 16, 2023 compliance initial decision, the administrative judge
found the agency in partial noncompliance with the final decision in the
underlying appeal. Philip v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket
No. NY-0752-21-0095-C-1, Compliance File (CF), Tab 9, Compliance Initial
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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

Decision (CID) at 3. For the reasons discussed below, we find the agency in
compliance and DISMISS the petition for enforcement.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON COMPLIANCE
In an initial decision issued on February 25, 2022, the administrative judge
directed the agency to mitigate the appellant’s removal to a five-day suspension
without pay; provide the appellant with the appropriate amount of back pay and
interest on the back pay; and adjust the appellant’s benefits with appropriate
credits and deductions. Philip v. Department of Homeland Security , MSPB
Docket No. NY-0752-21-0095-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 47, Initial Decision
at 8. 2
On June 22, 2022, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement,
contending that the agency had not provided him with back pay. CF, Tab 1 at 3.
On July 7, 2022, the agency provided evidence that it had deposited the back pay
into appellant’s bank account. CF, Tab 3 at 5. The appellant then argued, in part,
that the agency had not calculated his back pay correctly, because the appellant
should have been paid at the GS-12, Step 8 salary level after July 2021; and that
the agency had not restored all his sick leave. CF, Tab 5 at 3. In the compliance
initial decision, dated March 16, 2023, the administrative judge ordered the
agency to (1) review the appellant’s sick leave record and restore any sick leave
he lost as a result of the removal action and to which he remained entitled; and
(2) determine whether the appellant would have been granted a salary step
increase to GS-12, Step 8 in July 2021, and if so, provide him with the additional
funds he would have received if not for the removal action. CID at 3. 3
2
Neither party filed a petition for review of the initial decision, and it became the
Board’s final decision on March 31, 2022.
3
The compliance initial decision informed the agency that, if it decided to take the
actions required by the decision, it must submit to the Clerk of the Board, within the
time limit for filing a petition for review under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), a statement that
it has taken the actions identified in the compliance initial decision, along with
evidence establishing that it has taken those actions. CID at 10-11; see 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.183(a)(6)(i). The compliance initial decision also informed the parties that they
3

On April 13, 2023, the agency filed a statement of compliance asserting it
had restored 1,304 total hours of sick leave to the appellant on July 18 and
October 20, 2022; and paid the appellant additional funds in the gross amount of
$2,812.56 for backpay, plus interest of $93.08, for his step increase to GS-12,
Step 8 on August 15, 2021. Philip v. Department of Homeland Security,
NY-0752-21-0095-X-1, Compliance Referral File (CRF), Tab 1 at 1-7. The
agency also submitted emails between the parties, dated March 16 and 17, 2023,
confirming that the appellant had received his back pay and restored sick leave.
Id. at 8.
On April 13, 2023, the Board issued an Acknowledgement Order noting the
agency’s filing and informing the appellant that he must file any response within
20 calendar days. CRF, Tab 2 at 2. The order specifically informed the appellant
that if he failed to file a response, the Board might assume he was satisfied and
dismiss the petition for enforcement. Id.
The appellant has not filed any response to the agency’s compliance
submission.
When the Board finds a personnel action unwarranted or not sustainable, it
orders that the appellant be placed, as nearly as possible, in the situation he would
have been in had the wrongful personnel action not occurred. House v.
Department of the Army, 98 M.S.P.R. 530, ¶ 9 (2005). The agency bears the
burden to prove its compliance with a Board order. Vaughan v. Department of
Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R. 319, ¶ 5 (2011). An agency’s assertions of compliance
must include a clear explanation of its compliance actions supported by
documentary evidence. Id. The appellant may rebut the agency’s evidence of
compliance by making “specific, nonconclusory, and supported assertions of
continued noncompliance.” Brown v. Office of Personnel Management,
113 M.S.P.R. 325, ¶ 5 (2010).
could file a petition for review if they disagreed with the compliance initial decision.
CID at 11; see 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.114(e), 1201.183(a)(6)(ii). Neither party petitioned for
review of the compliance initial decision.
4

Here, the agency filed evidence of compliance to which the appellant did
not respond, despite being apprised that the Board might construe lack of
response as satisfaction with the agency’s response. Accordingly, in light of the
appellant’s failure to respond, we find that the agency is now in full compliance
with the February 25, 2022 decision, 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 OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
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

4
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

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).
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
6

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. 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
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
7

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

5
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

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
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: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9964588. Public record. Not legal advice.