Opinion

Pamela Davis-Jones v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: May 1, 2024
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 15.9%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

PAMELA DAVIS-JONES, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, SF-0714-21-0261-I-1

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS DATE: May 1, 2024

AFFAIRS,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Lawrence G. Widem , Esquire, West Hartford, Connecticut, for the

appellant.

Mickel-Ange Eveillard , Esquire, Los Angeles, California, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

FINAL ORDER

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

found that the agency proved its charge of deficient performance but remanded

the matter to the agency for a proper penalty determination pursuant to 38 U.S.C.

§ 714. For the reasons set forth below, the appellant’s petition for review is

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

DISMISSED as untimely filed without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.114(e), (g).

BACKGROUND

In March 2021, the appellant filed a Board appeal challenging the agency’s

decision to demote her from GS-0675-09 Supervisory Medical Records

Technician to GS-0675-08 Medical Records Coder for failure to meet the

performance expectations of a critical element of her position. Initial Appeal File

(IAF), Tab 1 at 1, 4, Tab 4 at 35-42. On September 1, 2021, the administrative

judge issued an initial decision sustaining the agency’s determination that the

appellant had failed to meet performance expectations and finding that the

appellant failed to prove her affirmative defenses of disability discrimination,

retaliation for prior Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity, and

whistleblower retaliation. IAF, Tab 31, Initial Decision (ID) at 12-37. However,

because the administrative judge found that neither the agency’s proposal nor its

decision letter included any discussion of the factors set forth in Douglas v.

Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981), he remanded the matter to the

agency for a new penalty determination. ID at 38-40. The administrative judge

ordered the agency to provide the appellant with an opportunity to comment on

the propriety of any new penalty, to make a new penalty decision, and to issue a

new decision, with appeal rights pursuant to 38 U.S.C § 714 if applicable, no later

than 15 business days after the date the initial decision became final. ID at 40.

The administrative judge informed the parties that the initial decision would

become final on October 6, 2021, unless a petition for review was filed by that

date. ID at 41.

The appellant filed a petition for review on October 21, 2022. Petition for

Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. At the same time, she also filed a motion to waive the

time limit to permit her late-filed petition for review, arguing that good cause

existed for the delay. PFR File, Tab 3. The agency filed a response, urging the

Board to dismiss the appellant’s petition for review as untimely. PFR File, Tab 6.

The appellant filed a reply. PFR File, Tab 8.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the initial decision

is issued, or, if the appellant shows that she received the initial decision more

than 5 days after it was issued, within 30 days after the date of receipt.

Williams v. Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 237, ¶ 7 (2008);

5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). Here, it appears to be undisputed that the petition for

review was untimely filed. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3, Tab 3 at 4. The appellant is a

registered e-filer, and the initial decision was served on her electronically on

September 1, 2021—the date it was issued. IAF, Tab 1 at 2, Tab 32; ID at 1; see

5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(i)-(n). Therefore, her petition for review was due no later than

October 6, 2021. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e) (35-day deadline for filing a

petition for review). As a result, the appellant’s petition for review filed on

October 21, 2022, is untimely by over a year.

The Board will waive the filing deadline for a petition for review only upon

a showing of good cause for the filing delay. Lawson v. Department of Homeland

Security, 102 M.S.P.R. 185, ¶ 5 (2006); 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.12, 1201.114(g). To

establish good cause for an untimely filing, a party must show that she exercised

due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances of her 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 her excuse and her showing of due

diligence, whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented

evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her

ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune

which similarly shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely file her

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).

In the appellant’s motion to waive the time limit for filing her petition for

review, she states that her petition for review is untimely because the agency

improperly failed to notify her of her appeal rights when it issued her a new

penalty determination on or about October 18, 2021. PFR File, Tab 3 at 11, 13,

20-21. She also claims that the initial decision did not give her any guidance

“describing how the remand and the issuance of a new agency decision would

affect or not affect the deadline” for filing a petition for review, and she

emphasizes that she was pro se during this time. Id. at 13. In addition, the

appellant asserts that the administrative judge was improperly appointed and that

dismissing her appeal as untimely will violate the Appointments Clause. Id.

at 14-16. She also argues at length why she believes that the administrative judge

erred in his analysis and conclusions in the initial decision. Id. at 5-11.

In its response, the agency stresses that the initial decision in no way

stayed the deadline to timely file a petition for review under 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.114(e). PFR File, Tab 6 at 7. It also submits as new evidence an

October 27, 2021 penalty decision, which includes a notice of appeal rights that

informs the appellant that she has 10 business days after the date of the action to

file a Board appeal, and an email dated October 26, 2021, in which the appellant

states “Thank You for this document. I have already informed you regarding my

intention(s) this MSPB issue [sic].” Id. at 8-15.

In this case, we find that the appellant’s more than 1-year delay in filing

her petition for review is not a minimal delay. See, e.g., Winfrey v. National

Archives and Records Administration, 88 M.S.P.R. 403, ¶ 6 (2001) (finding that a

48-day delay in filing a petition for review was not minimal and did not provide a

basis for waiving the filing deadline, despite the appellant’s pro se status).

Although the appellant claims that she was confused as to how the issuance of a

new agency penalty decision would affect or not affect the deadline for filing a

petition for review, the appellant must show that her confusion is related to a

specific ambiguity in either the instructions she received or in a Board procedure

in order to establish good cause. See Forst v. Office of Personnel Management,

97 M.S.P.R. 142, ¶ 7 (2004). The appellant has not done so here, and we find

that the administrative judge’s instructions on this point were clear. He explicitly

advised the appellant that the initial decision would become final on October 6,

2021, unless she filed a petition for review by that date. ID at 41. Although the

administrative judge ultimately concluded that a remand was necessary for a

proper penalty determination under Douglas, he specifically ordered the agency

to issue its new penalty decision “no later than 15 business days from the date

this initial decision becomes final.” ID at 40 (emphasis added). It was thus

evident from the administrative judge’s instructions that the eventual issuance of

a new agency decision was intended to come after the appellant had an

opportunity to challenge the administrative judge’s findings in the initial decision

and that the issuance of a new agency decision did not affect the deadline for

filing a petition for review.

We find the appellant’s argument that her petition for review was untimely

because the agency’s October 2021 penalty decision allegedly improperly failed

to notify her of her appeal rights similarly unavailing. PFR File, Tab 3 at 11, 13,

20-21. The initial decision contained the relevant notice of appeal rights/Board

review that clearly explained to the appellant when and how to file a petition for

review challenging the administrative judge’s decision. ID at 40-44. The

agency’s new penalty determination, rendered after the initial decision became

final, is a separate issue. 2 The administrative judge explained this in the initial

decision when he stated “[i]f the agency again imposes a penalty that the

appellant can appeal to the Board, it should give her notice of [her] rights to do

so.” ID at 40. As a result, the appellant’s arguments do not contribute to a

Notably, both the appellant’s petition for review and her motion to waive the time

limit only dispute the administrative judge’s analysis and findings in the initial

decision. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-11, 22-34, Tab 3 at 5-10.

finding of good cause for her untimely petition for review. 3 See Sumrall v.

Department of the Air Force, 85 M.S.P.R. 597, ¶ 13 (2000) (finding that an

appellant’s lack of sophistication in Board matters and general inability to

understand instructions and procedures is insufficient to show good cause for a

filing delay); Wallace v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 81 M.S.P.R. 88, ¶ 5

(stating that the appellant’s inexperience with legal matters and unfamiliarity

with Board procedures does not warrant waiver of the filing deadline), aff’d,

217 F.3d 856 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Table). In any case, we note that even if the

appellant was unsure of her appeal rights following the agency’s new penalty

determination, she still does not explain why she waited a year to take any

subsequent action. See Gerald v. Department of the Treasury, 114 M.S.P.R. 504,

¶ 7 (2010) (finding that the appellant failed to show that he exercised the due

diligence or ordinary prudence that would justify waiving the deadline for filing a

petition for review where he failed to provide any explanation whatsoever as to

why he waited nearly 19 months to file his petition).

With regard to the appellant’s repeated assertions that she was pro se when

the administrative judge issued the initial decision and when the agency issued its

new penalty determination, although we take that into consideration, the Board

has long held that a lack of representation or an appellant’s inability to obtain

representation fails to establish good cause to excuse an untimely petition for

review. McCoy v. U.S. Postal Service, 112 M.S.P.R. 256, ¶ 8 (2009), aff’d,

360 F. App’x 132 (Fed. Cir. 2010). With respect to the appellant’s objection to

the nature of the administrative judge’s appointment, which she raises for the first

time on review, the Board has found that an Appointments Clause challenge must

be raised before the administrative judge and has stated that it will not address the

merits of such a claim raised for the first time on review. McClenning v.

Likewise, the documents that the agency submits on review, regarding the issue of

whether or not the appellant received a notice of appeal rights with the new penalty

determination, are not material to the timeliness of the petition for review issue

presented here. PFR File, Tab 6 at 8-15; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d).

Department of the Army, 2022 MSPB 3, ¶¶ 5-15. Finally, the appellant’s

assertion that she is entitled to the protection of the “continuing violation

doctrine” as it relates to the issue of reasonable accommodation is inapplicable

and irrelevant to the issue of the timeliness of the petition for review. PFR File,

Tab 3 at 16-19; see, e.g., Marasco v. U.S. Postal Service, 66 M.S.P.R. 555, 558

(1995) (finding that merits arguments are not relevant to the timeliness issue and

do not establish good cause for an untimely filing).

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 initial decision remains the final decision of the

Board regarding the agency’s demotion action.

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

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

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.

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.

(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

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

following address:

U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20439

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.