Anna v. Perez v. Department of Homeland Security

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ANNA V. PEREZ, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, NY-0752-14-0191-I-1 v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DATE: April 7, 2016 SECURITY, Agency. THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1 Albert Loew, Esquire, Garden City, New York, for the appellant. Joseph Rieu, Esquire, Michael W. Gaches, Esquire, and Alex L. Kutrolli, Arlington, Virginia, for the agency. BEFORE Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman Mark A. Robbins, Member FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has petitioned for review of the initial decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 32, Initial Decision; Petition for Review (PFR) 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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 File, Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the petition for review as settled. ¶2 After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT & RELEASE” signed and dated by the parties on December 12, 2014. PFR File, Tab 7. The document provides, among other things, for the withdrawal of the petition for review. Id., ¶ A.1. 2 ¶3 Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146, 149 (1988). We find here that the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement, that they understand the terms, and that they want the Board to enforce those terms. PFR File, Tab 7, ¶ 6. ¶4 In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the record for enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the agreement is lawful on its face, whether the parties freely entered into it, and whether the subject matter of this appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction, that is, whether a law, rule, or regulation grants the Board the authority to decide such a matter. See Stewart v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 104, 107 (1997). We find here that the agreement is lawful on its face, that the parties freely entered into it, and that the subject matter of this appeal—the removal of a full time Federal employee in the excepted service—is within the Board’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii), 49 U.S.C. § 40122(g)(2-3). IAF, Tab 8 (4-n). Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the petition for review “with prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate under these 2 The parties clarified their intention to request only that the Board grant the request to dismiss the pending petition for review in the referenced appeal as settled and that they withdraw their previous request for reopening and vacature of final Board decisions in prior related Board appeals. PFR File, Tab 9. 3 circumstances, and we accept the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement purposes. ¶5 This is the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.113). NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not been fully carried out, and should include the dates and results of any communications between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a). NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS You have the right to request review of this final decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to the court at the following address: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20439 The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 4 If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in title 5 of the U.S. Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the U.S. Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm. Additional information 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, 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 Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case. FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________ William D. Spencer Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C.